People who hate children

[flonks]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

I know you like to remind us that this isn’t your primary language and you don’t live where English is spoken

Not really. The first time curlcoat hit on my grammar I did not mention anything, but she kept insisting.

, but do you also realize that maybe that makes you a little out of the loop on what disability payments are in this country? Let me give you a hint… it isn’t welfare. Welfare is far, far easier to get.

It is the same. Society pays for you, because you need it, whether you are poor or disabled. Note, that I am very left wing, I am FOR welfare, I am for disability payments. I live in France (w/o being French) and where these things actually work, and where the concept of welfare is more developed than in the US. I do not have a problem with welfare as long as it is needed.

If you insist on calling it welfare you insist on insulting the millions of people who are disabled.

Bullshit.

I realize some in this thread don’t mind the insults that disabled people have been given (freeloaders, sponges, non productive), but it is an incorrect assumption and no better than the people who believe children are less important than anyone else. Why is your prejudice okay and theirs isn’t?

Before jumping to ridiculous conclusions, you might want to read this:

@flonks

I agreed with all your previous posts, but I do not go along with this. IMO society needs to protect people who need protection (kids), and more than that, help people who need help (the disabled). Reserving parking space in front of an entrance is the least of the things we should grant the disabled. It does not cost anything, we can get some exercise walking a couple of meters.

Contributing financially such that they can live in a decent way and don’t need to suffer more than necessary for something they did not choose is decency. Subsiding businesses who employ disabled people, subsiding the purchase of expensive equipment, making buildings and infrastructure accessible, that is decency.

Society will continue to go this way. The tendency is to integrate disabled children in normal classes with not disabled children.

I did not get the irony in mswas’s post and thought he was ranting against disabled people, but at least this should make my view on disabled people very clear. Can we move on? Oh, I forgot that for you asking to move on means trying to avoid the discussion…

If you are saying it just to “show” someone how it looks when they say something about kids, that makes you a troll (and not a very good one). Which is it? Are you a troll or are you prejudiced against people who are disabled?

What is a bad troll? Should I be more concerned of being a good troll or a bad one?

Back to the main point: Curlcoat managed to pay 50 grand for a dog’s surgery. Call it welfare, call it help for the disabled, call it whatever you want. I am for “XXXX” money in all the terms you can imagine, but I don’t think society should pay “XXX” money to people who are well off enough to pay 50 grand for a dog. The US does not have universal health care, but it is ok for public money going the animal healthcare? Giving “XXX” money (welfare??? ) to curlcoat means using public money to cure a dog.

And let’s not forget: this is ok, but spending the money on playgrounds is not.

[Malthus]

@starwarsfreek42

So the taxes that were taken out of my paycheck last month aren’t benefiting someone on social security, welfare, disability, or who is taking advantage of the public education system right now? Sorry, not buying it.

I can pretty well guarantee I pay more in taxes than you (I’m a lawyer with more than a decade’s worth of experience practicing in a major law firm)- am I then more valuable than you? My death to be mourned more than yours, objectively speaking?

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@flonks

Can we move on? Oh, I forgot that for you asking to move on means trying to avoid the discussion…

Puhleeeze try to get over yourself, I’ve tried to avoid nothing so your little insult is meaningless, much like the rest of your rantings.

In the US most disability claims are rejected at least once. Most people need to get an attorney to obtain disability benefits. I’ve known doctors who have to end up going to court to help their patients get disability benefits. If someone is disabled and gets disability payments I don’t get a flying fuck what they spend their money on. It’s not my business and considering you don’t even pay taxes here, it’s seriously not your business.

If she puts a 2nd mortgage on her house to pay for her dog’s surgery or takes every penny of her paycheck to pay for her dog, I don’t care. People who are disabled and cannot work don’t have to be poor. It’s part of the money we all pay in taxes and money that business contribute that makes up SSDI payments.

So regardless of what **flonks ** of France thinks, in the US you can have $250K in the bank (or a million, or ten million, or ten dollars) and still qualify for SSDI payments if you are disabled and approved for the benefits. You can take that money and spend it on crack, renting a yacht, throwing parties for your dogs, or buying your little snowflake a new toy every day… whatever you choose. Disagree with it until you’re blue in the face, but it’s not how it works.

Also, I’ve said nothing against spending money on playgrounds so you can bleat, bitch, and whine all day and night about it, that doesn’t concern me.

[starwarsfreek42]

@Malthus

I can pretty well guarantee I pay more in taxes than you (I’m a lawyer with more than a decade’s worth of experience practicing in a major law firm)- am I then more valuable than you? My death to be mourned more than yours, objectively speaking?

Well, professionally and financially speaking, yes. You are more valuable to society than I, a restaurant manager, am now or can hope to be in the near future. Whether you are more valuable as a person as in your actual life, well, I tend to think that everyone’s pretty equal there, with the exclusion of the Hitlers and the Saddam Husseins. That doesn’t mean that you are more or less loved or that more or less people should mourn your death, just that the actual loss to society would be greater.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

So regardless of what **flonks ** of France thinks, in the US you can have $250K in the bank (or a million, or ten million, or ten dollars) and still qualify for SSDI payments if you are disabled and approved for the benefits. You can take that money and spend it on crack, renting a yacht, throwing parties for your dogs, or buying your little snowflake a new toy every day… whatever you choose. Disagree with it until you’re blue in the face, but it’s not how it works.

This is not strictly true. There are income limits above which SSDI payments are offset or eliminated completely- and interest payments and capital gains are considered part of earnings for SSDI qualification purposes.

Secondly, although disability benefits are not necessarily what you think of when the word welfare is mentioned, they are part and parcel of the systematic safety net that is welfare. It is perfectly accurate- and not an insult- to say that curlcoat is on welfare, if she receives SS or state disability benefits. Blame Reagan and the GOP for making welfare a dirty word, if you like, but not flonks.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

This is not strictly true. There are income limits above which SSDI payments are offset or eliminated completely- and interest payments and capital gains are considered part of earnings for SSDI qualification purposes.

Secondly, although disability benefits are not necessarily what you think of when the word welfare is mentioned, they are part and parcel of the systematic safety net that is welfare. It is perfectly accurate- and not an insult- to say that curlcoat is on welfare, if she receives SS or state disability benefits. Blame Reagan and the GOP for making welfare a dirty word, if you like, but not flonks.

Income limits via interest and yes, capital gains. But much too high to affect most people and certainly not enough if someone has even $250K in the bank. Now if you sell a $500K house and are subject to capital gains that can affect that year, but it doesn’t negate your SSDI.

Reagan isn’t here, flonks is. I don’t care a bit about who has demonized the word, it’s not the same thing. There’s a difference between can’t work and won’t work. Usually people get welfare by having children they can’t afford and people get disability by getting hurt.

Before the people who want to take a slight against anything CLOSE to a child as fighting words, I (normally) don’t have a problem with feeding kids via welfare even with the mother just chooses to have more and more children. The parents are at fault and the welfare system is highly flawed, but the kids are innocent and deserve care.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

Reagan isn’t here, flonks is. I don’t care a bit about who has demonized the word, it’s not the same thing. There’s a difference between can’t work and won’t work. Usually people get welfare by having children they can’t afford and people get disability by getting hurt.

That’s just it. It is the same thing. Welfare means any direct government benefit paid to individuals. It encompasses everything from disability benefits to student loans. The difference between curlcoat and the stereotypical welfare mom is that curlcoat is ostensibly physically unable to work while the other is ostensibly unable to work due to lack of job skills or substance abuse. You may think that one is a valid function of government and the other is not, but the same word is used to refer to both.

ETA: I will leave it at that as far as this semantic discussion goes, since it doesn’t really have much to do with the thread topic… not that I think our discussion is getting in the way of anything important.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That’s just it. It is the same thing. Welfare means any direct government benefit paid to individuals. It encompasses everything from disability benefits to student loans. The difference between curlcoat and the stereotypical welfare mom is that curlcoat is ostensibly physically unable to work while the other is ostensibly unable to work due to lack of job skills or substance abuse. You may think that one is a valid function of government and the other is not, but the same word is used to refer to both.

ETA: I will leave it at that as far as this semantic discussion goes, since it doesn’t really have much to do with the thread topic… not that I think our discussion is getting in the way of anything important.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you’re saying that any government money is welfare then anyone who gets more money back in taxes than they pay (for deduction like kids) is on a form of welfare. They are getting money back from the government for their deductions. I don’t see it that way, but if you’re talking about free money from the government, that would apply

[keturah]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you’re saying that any government money is welfare then anyone who gets more money back in taxes than they pay (for deduction like kids) is on a form of welfare. They are getting money back from the government for their deductions. I don’t see it that way, but if you’re talking about free money from the government, that would apply

You really have no understanding of the tax system. People do not pay taxes from their paycheck. That is money paid forward that they may or may not owe. At the end of the year they look at what they have paid in, then calculate what they actually owe and get a refund of what they have overpaid over the year. Deductions refer to the income that people earn that was taxed but for some reason should not be–for example the standard deduction that we all receive. All that is refunded is the tax, not the full amount of income. Tax credits are a whole other ball of wax, and they are, in fact, a form of welfare.

[keturah]

I should clarify, this is federal and state income tax that I am refering to. I am not addressing social security tax that we pay and may or may not see in our lifetime.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@keturah

You really have no understanding of the tax system. People do not pay taxes from their paycheck. That is money paid forward that they may or may not owe. At the end of the year they look at what they have paid in, then calculate what they actually owe and get a refund of what they have overpaid over the year. Deductions refer to the income that people earn that was taxed but for some reason should not be–for example the standard deduction that we all receive. All that is refunded is the tax, not the full amount of income. Tax credits are a whole other ball of wax, and they are, in fact, a form of welfare.

Look at you, you made an entire comment without calling someone a name or bringing up nasty shit about someone’s looks, diseases, or disorders. Did you go to some “How to have class” seminar or something?

You’re blathering about a standard deduction. Yes, we all get one but you get an extra one for having a child. Your child doesn’t work so you are getting free money from the government for having given birth to him. That’s free money from the government. You can call it what you want, but that’s what it is. If free money = welfare then you get welfare for your son.

Honestly, this is just about all the conversation I can have with you without feeling like I’ve bumped against something slimy on the bottom of a lake. For the shit you brought up the other day, you’re not worth the time it takes to respond. Go bother someone who will deal with you.

[keturah]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

Look at you, you made an entire comment without calling someone a name or bringing up nasty shit about someone’s looks, diseases, or disorders. Did you go to some “How to have class” seminar or something?

You’re blathering about a standard deduction. Yes, we all get one but you get an extra one for having a child. Your child doesn’t work so you are getting free money from the government for having given birth to him. That’s free money from the government. You can call it what you want, but that’s what it is. If free money = welfare then you get welfare for your son.

Honestly, this is just about all the conversation I can have with you without feeling like I’ve bumped against something slimy on the bottom of a lake. For the shit you brought up the other day, you’re not worth the time it takes to respond. Go bother someone who will deal with you.

What free money, honestly? I get an $850 tax deduction for my son. What that means is that I do not owe taxes on that $850. No one is giving me any money.

[curlcoat]

@flonks

I speak and write it well enough to make myself understood on difficult subjects in a language which is my second (or third) language, although I do not live in a Country where it is spoken. If others understand me, you will. But perhaps you can’t handle the content, so complaining on the grammar is easier?

Heh, must have hit a nerve - I was making a joke as I was unaware that English isn’t your first language.

You did apply, at least you said so in this thread. It has been subject of several discussions, I will not search the 38 pages for that cite.

Didn’t you notice that what I quoted from your post didn’t make sense? Here, I’ll remind you -
“You are not applying but you did apply”

It has been asked by several people, not just me. You never answered it.

Since you aren’t making any sense, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you’re saying that any government money is welfare then anyone who gets more money back in taxes than they pay (for deduction like kids) is on a form of welfare. They are getting money back from the government for their deductions. I don’t see it that way, but if you’re talking about free money from the government, that would apply

No, I’m saying any direct financial assistance to an individual from the government is, by definition, welfare. It doesn’t matter whether or not you are a net beneficiary of these programs or not- they exist as a safety net for people who are unable to pay their own way, whether or not a given individual ever needs the net.

A common misconception is that welfare consists solely of payments made to people who have always been poor and will always be poor, but that is not the case. A person who makes $70k a year for their entire working life except for a two-month period in which he was unemployed and received unemployment benefits is by definition a welfare recipient during those two months.

See here.

Social Security disability and retirement benefits are, for the record, a type of welfare assistance.

@starwarsfreek42

So the taxes that were taken out of my paycheck last month aren’t benefiting someone on social security, welfare, disability, or who is taking advantage of the public education system right now? Sorry, not buying it.

Of course they are- but if you died tomorrow, there’d be no more Social Security or Medicare deductions from your paycheck, and you’d no longer be a contributing member of society.

[curlcoat]

@Birdmonster

And playgrounds require constant maintenance? C’mon now.

Not constant maintenance but certainly much more than tennis courts. If nothing else, my city is paying someone to go around and rake the sand in the playgrounds every morning. Why I don’t know.

Not at all. I was comparing playgrounds to parks and trees on the street: things that beautify a city, get the citizens outdoors, and generally improve the quality of life.

You think swings and jungle gyms beautify a city and improve the quality of life for all it’s citizens?

There are plenty of these as well. I live in San Francisco and am taxed out the ass for all manner of services I do not and will never use.

Such as?

Sure. I just have a fundamental problem with people who don’t vote and kvetch about the way other people do vote. I’m aware that you feel your vote doesn’t count, but, when you’re moaning about smaller, citywide issues, your vote caries far more weight.

Actually, it doesn’t. I live in a city with a high Catholic population so the majority almost always goes against what I feel is right.

I’m not really sure how my post of “…For the record, I’d have no problem with you getting some of my tax money for a legit disability, regardless of how I feel about you. It seems simple to me…” led to this response.

Because it isn’t your tax money.

[Rubystreak]

@curlcoat

You think swings and jungle gyms beautify a city and improve the quality of life for all it’s citizens?

Its citizens. It’s = it is

You think tennis courts and bike lanes beautify a city and improve the quality of life for all its citizens? Clearly they do not. But you think I should pay for them with nary a peep about it. Please rescind your assertion that people with kids are not paying for things they don’t use. That is factually incorrect, which I think I’ve proven.

Playgrounds are usually in a park-like context. There are trees, benches, grassy areas. You don’t have to be a kid to use them, though if you have the misfortune of being repulsed by kids, that’s too bad for you, not the fault of the park. I have used playgrounds on countless occasions without having a child with me. Can’t say the same for the tennis courts or bike lanes. You could picnic or lunch there as a regular citizen, whereas bike paths and tennis courts are for use by the athletic and properly equipped only. They are much more exclusive. Why are they not the subject of your ire?

[curlcoat]

@Birdmonster

I never said it was a Good Idea—simply pointed out that the child is in NO WAY RESPONSIBLE. You can’t argue with that right?

I never said anything about that. However, it is quite apparent to me that because far too many people value children (the younger the better) as more important/desireable/cuter than adults, their thinking tends to get muddied up.

I’m a born and raised Californian and, no, only a fraction of a single cent of my paycheck goes to the Octomom herself.

OK, I would think you would know that I didn’t mean you specifically, I’m talking about the amount of money that the state has paid to her and continues to pay.

And what’s the deal with taking her first child, exactly?

What I said? I was under the impression that she was either living on her workers comp claim or welfare at the time #1 was born, and I don’t think that mothers who have babies without any means of support other than the government should be allowed to keep them. It doesn’t seem to be good for the children and it isn’t good for society.

I also never said I supported sending them home with her, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You support society giving mothers like her money, just because they have children.

I again ask: is the child responsible? No. And so the Octomom’s going to mooch my tax dollars. So fucking what? It really doesn’t make a difference to me.

Must be nice to have so much money that you don’t care how high your taxes get or how they are wasted… :dubious:

ust cause she’s popping out a litter doesn’t mean she won’t care for the child.

Look at it logically - she already had multiple kids under the age of 7 and now she has 8 newborns. To be raised by just herself and maybe her mother if she can stick it out. She has no means of support other than “friends, family and church” - of course she failed to mention the government. She filed bankruptcy last year and lost her house. She hired a publicist ferchrissakes. If she had this many cats in one small house, society would be calling her a crazy cat lady and animal control would be all over her butt - why is it OK for her to stuff all these very young children into one small house and raise them on whatever money she can scrounge?

You’re right. We should send those kids to the coal mines. Once they put into SS, then they can get some money.

No, we should send their mother to the coal mines instead of paying her to sit on her butt (now that she is done having children that is).

[curlcoat]

@Rubystreak

There is no community center near me. Even if there was, I wouldn’t use it. Why should I pay for the people Southside to have one? I’m not going to use it, ever.

I don’t know - why aren’t there community centers near you? Is there only the one?

They were given their own line in the Capital Projects section of the budget. I am paying for them even though I will never use them. This directly counters your claim that people with kids are not paying for anything they don’t use. It would be nice if you could just admit you were incorrect and move on.

Now that someone has actually come up with something, yes I see that there are some things out there that parents pay for that they don’t use. Can I cut my tax rate down to whatever the bike trails cost you?

The tennis courts had their own item on the budget for maintenance, so you’d have to be incorrect about them costing zero.

Since I didn’t say “costing zero”…

I imagine their maintenance would be similar to that of a playground.

Why? Once a tennis court is in, as long as there isn’t vandalism, the only regular maintainance is the nets. Which might go bad faster in places that have weather but here they last years. Eventually I suppose they have to be resurfaced, but in the 15 years I’ve lived here, neither of the two tennis courts near me have had that done.

OTOH, as I said, my city is paying to rake the sand daily (or at least week-daily) in the playgrounds, plus it is pretty routine to see broken swings and teeters being repaired/replaced - kids are not exactly gentle with the equipment.

Different target audience, though I’d be more much more likely to use a playground than a tennis court. As Sleeps With Butterflies noted, sometimes adults do use them. They are not KIDS ONLY: NO ADULTS ALLOWED.

Uh huh. How often do you suppose an adult who isn’t there with kids uses a playground?

Not all kids HAVE their own yards. Many kids who do have yards don’t have all those swings, slides, etc. If you have no problem with the fact that I have to subsidize people playing tennis and riding bikes, why do you have such a big problem with playgrounds? They are just about exactly the same thing.

No, it’s not. As I said before, playgrounds are used by a very narrow age range, whereas tennis courts and bike trails are used by almost all ages. Plus, courts and trails provide a place for people to bring their “toys” and play - playgrounds is the taxpayer providing the place and the toys. If a parent cannot afford toys for their kids to play with either at home or at a park, what are they doing having kids?

The elderly and disabled aren’t going to use the bike lanes or tennis courts, but they could sit and eat their lunches in the playground on a bench. Anyone can use a playground. It’s just a park with some toys in it. A tennis court? Rather exclusive.

The elderly and disabled don’t tend to go to parks to eat lunch…

Here, a playground is not a park with some toys in it. It is either a separate entity, fenced in like a dog park, or it is part of a park. Even when it is part of a park, it is not at all park-like - the ground is covered with sand or crushed shell and it’s crammed with big toys made mostly out of either metal or concrete. There are generally big trees on the perimeter to provide shade but they are not ornamental. Even without a bunch of screaming kids in it, a playground isn’t a scenic spot.

[curlcoat]

@calm_kiwi

Have you ever seen a building with disabled access? Sounds at street crossings for the blind? Disabled public parking? Access to public transport? Are those services provided for free?

Those aren’t programs, those are examples of laws that cover the disabled. Other than the chirpers for the blind at crosswalks, the rest of that is covered by whoever owns the building, the parking lot, the bus company. And they are one off things, not ongoing programs.

Once YOU pay tax it becomes EVERYONES money.

So? Once the government has it they should be able to waste as they see fit and I should say nothing?

We all need to contribute, that is how society works.

Great! Now, can we get everyone to contribute, and then maybe work on those who take more contributing more?

If being a bitter old trout does it for you, then go for it but don’t try to pretend you are personally paying for raising other peoples children.

Ain’t pretending - doing.

[curlcoat]

@Abby_Emma_Sasha

I haven’t read this whole thing(Jeebus Krist, how could I) But I want to congratualate Curlcoat for being so strident. Lord knows, it’s hard, I tried once but gave up. I was weak, but you have it in you**Curlcoat[/B Don’t let them scare you, make your statement known.

Eh, when I have nothing better to do and need some amusement!