I have been meaning to ask this question for some time now. The following articles are a good starting point.

My son was born on May 14, 1978. On May 14, 1996 he received his mailing from the Federal government requiring him to register for the Selective Service. I'll never forget feeling how cruel the government was. TO THE DAY they had kept records of my son's birth and wasted NO TIME requiring him to register. What they were saying to me and to him in essence was - 'If we deem it necessary, you will be required to risk your life'. During a draft there is no choice. All must go.

My question is this - If a child is denied public benefits because of his/her parents income-level, marital status or anything else should that child also be required to go to war for their country? We hear alot from the haves who do not want to support the have-nots yet no one ever addresses that fact that these 'have-not' children will one day grow up and may be required to defend the 'haves'.

Is it really right that today a child may be denied the Head Start program because his mother is single and yet this same child after struggling through life may have to give his life to protect the interests of big oil? Do we really live in a country where so many low income children go to bed hungry night after night and we continually make it harder for them? Do we really have the right to expect them to risk their lives for us?

But more to the point ... why do we force our least cared for children to risk their lives for a country that did so little to care for them? And let's not forget that we also watch as our best cared for children get the desk jobs.

The following programs are being considered by Bush. They make me sick.

Marriage “Incentives” Threaten Welfare Policy

5/22/2001 - The Bush Administration is considering mandatory programs to promote marriage among the poor as a way to reduce single parent families and “improve” the welfare system in the United States – programs feminists have long opposed. Today, a House Ways and Means subcommittee with jurisdiction over the renewal of welfare funds will hold a hearing on marriage incentives as the Bush Administration considers expanding such programs, which could earmark millions of dollars for marriage education and even “reward” single mothers with cash bonuses for marrying the child’s father. Such programs ignore alarming statistics on domestic violence, and could force women into legal relationships with their abusers under a government mandate.

Bush’s nominee for assistant secretary for family support at Department of Health and Human Services Wade Horn supports these “incentives” to marriage. The NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund notes that Horn argue for the denial of access for single parent families to important public benefits like Head Start and TANF. Horn argues that these limited public benefits should go to married, heterosexual, two-parent households first, leaving the “leftovers,” if any, to single parent and non-married two-parent households.

More on Wade Horn

Bush Appoints Anti-Women’s Rights Wade Horn to Welfare and Child Care Dept. in HHS

President Bush has nominated anti-women’s rights founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative Wade Horn to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. In this position, Horn would have authority over welfare, welfare reform, child care, child welfare, foster care, and adoption. The NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOW LDEF) warns that Horn’s confirmation would threaten women’s rights, especially the rights of low-income single mothers. Horn’s National Fatherhood Initiative’s (NFI) sexist agenda would force women to marry men through economic policies as a solution to a myriad of social problems “caused” by single mother families.

Horn argues that promoting marriage should be the highest priority in welfare policy, and bases his arguments on gender stereotypes, such as his assertion that wives should “submit” to their husbands and his belief that mothers and fathers inherently parent differently. He opposes abortion and gay and lesbian parents. NOW LDEF notes that he argues for the denial of access for single parent families to important public benefits like Head Start. These limited benefits should go to heterosexual two-parent households first, leaving the “leftovers,” if any, to single parent households. He would also deny welfare benefits to two parent families if the parents are not married.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 24, 2001

Answers

Debra, good question. Personally dont think anyone should be forced to go to war if they do not want to. You realize you have opened up a can of worms and the haves will dominate this thread? Along with and it wont surprise me in the least, you will be beaten down and accused of being a welfare momma. But the stinking repubs have it now. And those who voted for baby bush will get what the deserve. Nothing. This country is going to hell fast. Who will pay? The children of course. Might I take this time to thank all those who voted for baby bush and expected something different this time around?

-- (bush@is.whacked), May 24, 2001.

May 14, a good birthday!

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 24, 2001.

Debra,

What makes you think that everyone else's sons won't get the same notices on their eighteenth birthdays?

I have a stark truth for you and your little class warfare post: the government doesn't owe you, or your son, or anyone else, a single thing in the way of head start programs, or health care, or food stamps, or anything of the such.

I almost choked on the hypocrisy of your ignorant post. You asked, "If a child is denied public benefits because of his/her parents income level, marital status, or anything else should that child also be required to go to war for their country"?

Do you mean like my child? My child isn't eligible for government wealth redistribution scheme benefits because of my income level. Is that what you mean? Does my child get a pass from the draft? If not, why not?

Your entitlement attitude is, in a nutshell, what is wrong with America today. To borrow from President Kennedy's famous speech. Ask not what your government can take from your fellow countrymen in confiscatory taxes and redistribute to you, but ask what you can get off your butt and do for yourself.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 24, 2001.

J, You beat me to it.

So, who is Debra, and why can't she get a grip? Answer: Hand out queen with her hands full.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 24, 2001.

I agree with J, though I'll frame my response differently.

The freedoms you and your son enjoy are the result of the sacrifices of other men and women. Our veterans did not go to war to preserve a welfare check, Head Start or government programs. They fought and died for our nation, our freedoms and our way of life. They bled on some distant battlefield so you could cast a vote, run for office, lobby for change. Parents and spouses watched caskets lowered into the earth so you could fret and frown and wonder if government was doing enough for little John or Jane.

The world is harsh place and America must be prepared to defend itself. This means someone's son or daughter may go into harm's way. Once upon a time, we honored our warriors. If yours is the common opinion, Debra, we no longer deserve America.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), May 24, 2001.

Man are drafted into the armed services.Women are not.Any comments?

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webnet.tv), May 24, 2001.

J:

You said, "What makes you think that everyone else's sons won't get the same notices on their eighteenth birthdays?"

Of course they will, but that doesn't mean they will ever serve. You have an incomplete grasp of our history in this matter.

By the way, did you know that a norom is a backward moron?

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comedy.xxx), May 24, 2001.

For goodness sake. Can anyone post anything without all the put downs? I guess not. Of course our resident favorite christian is the leader in the pack. Marg the skank hoe.

-- marg is a hoe (cut@this.skank), May 24, 2001.

I can address this question directly from my experience. I would like to start by saying that those who serve in war provide a great servus to this cuntry.

Stil, those that don't go to the battelfront still surve. Take my case. I wus elgible during the Vietnam War. I didn't go their. I stayed at home and defended the cuntry from the feered Mexican invashion.

Everywons contibushun is important.

Bless U,

GuessWho

-- GuessWho (Guesswho@penn.ave), May 24, 2001.

I would be curious to hear Cherri's opinion. Cherri, your politics are similar to Debra's, right? But you have also served in the military, right? I know you weren't drafted but what is your opinion of the requirement to register for the draft?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 24, 2001.

Hmmm, I didn't notice the fake "Cherri" post when I posted. I would still like to hear your opinion.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 24, 2001.

Bemused,

I grasp quite well. There will always be the very powerful who can pull strings to effect that which they will. In fact, one need not be very powerful to garner a non-combat role in our armed forces during wartime. I personally know of two men who, though neither was wealthy or powerful, found their way into non- combat positions because of who they happened to know. This will always be the case.

My problem is with Debra's attitude that it is not enough that her son benefits at the expense of others due to socialist wealth redistribution programs, but that he should somehow also be exempted from protecting this country should the need arise. Her class warfare blinders have betrayed her. For while there are a few sons of the truly wealthy/powerful who avoid combat, there are many, many sons of hard working, tax paying, middle to upper middle class Americans who die in combat. Her words were a slap in the face to every American taxpayer.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 24, 2001.

Go to hell j. No one ever helped me feed my children.

That doesn't stop me from feeling it is very wrong for a rich country to let their children go to bed hungry, especially if the reason is that their mom is single.

What really makes me sick is that these same children who YOU would deny helping will one day be required to protect YOUR ass.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 24, 2001.

Go ahead Deb. I have your back. j is for jerk, right? Thought so. Shame you cant post without attacks, but I agree with you 100% and was in military. As for it being a slap in the face for the american tax payor nope dont think so. Dont worry Deb you can bet j was a freaking draft dodger aint that right j?

-- ----------j's a draft dodger (debs@got.back), May 24, 2001.

Debra, I know you work hard (two jobs, right?), so just ignore J and his ignorant attacks.

I have seen the articles about Bush's marriage proposals and it sickens me as well. This is "social engineering" at its worst, and is testament to just how hypocritical this adminstration is. With the Senate going Democratic, I don't think you'll see much action in this regard. Bush is going around today preaching his "faith based programs," which means he gives "faith" to the poor and money to the rich. That program has been denounced on all sides. Now he's going to go around preaching marriage when the country as a whole is (sensibly) trending away from marriage.

Social engineering like this didn't work when the Democrats tried it, and it won't work when Bush tries it.

-- More GOP hypocrisy (they're@clueless.com), May 24, 2001.

Give the big J (jerk!) a break. He has been walking around with dumbya's dick stuck in his ass for a long time and its made him cranky! He's not even a real American! I could just see him in Vietnam shooting the little Vietnamese children instead of giving them some of his chocolate. (cause you know no one deserves any kind of handout). What a fucked up repug loser.

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), May 24, 2001.

"That doesn't stop me from feeling it is very wrong for a rich country to let their children go to bed hungry, especially if the reason is that their mom is single. "

AND That makes me wonder why you think it isn't wrong for that same rich country to murder babies.

WHY, do you idiots NEED the government to take care of you? No child should go to bed hungry,but why should the government pay for food, clothes , heat , whatever?Are you that incompetent you can't support yourself and your family?

This is just another version of "It takes a Village " from asshole Hillary.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 24, 2001.

Debra,

You are free to "feel that it is very wrong for a rich country to let their children go to bed hungry, especially if the reason is that their mom is single".

What your feelings won't allow your brain to see is that it is not, and cannot be, the government's responsibility to feed those children. It is the responsibility of their mother and father. The task is greatly more difficult if it is done by the mother alone, but that does not change the fact that it is not the responsibility of the government. For ultimately, if we absolve the parents of their responsibility to raise their children, then that responsibility falls upon the rest of us. We are then forced to bear the financial burden of raising not only our own children, but those of the irresponsible, as well. If you think that sort of arrangement is so hunky dory, I suggest that you pick out one of the many socialist countries of Europe to emigrate to, because we Americans that are fighting for freedom have yet to give in to you and your socialist ilk.

Your next comment shows me just how much your emotion clouds your thinking. Has it ever occurred to you that MY children may very well be required to some day protect the ass of some welfare recipient who my taxes have been supporting for years? You become apoplectic at the thought of these poor children being asked to serve their country if the need should arise, but you take for granted that my children should go and serve. YOU make me sick.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

anonymous coward # 1,

No I wasn't a draft dodger. I highly doubt that you would have the guts to say that to my face. If you did, we would have a go round.


anonymous coward # 2,

If Debra has to work two jobs (because her taxes that pay for wealth redistribution programs are so high that she can't raise her kids on one job), then who is ignorant for their views?

Speaking of ignorant, you can't even see that the Bush administration's "social engineering" proposals wouldn't be needed if the Democrat dream of social engineering, the welfare state, had never been created in the first place.


Tiny Baloney,

You seem to have a fixation on anal sex. Have women laughed at your namesake, the tiny baloney, and the humiliation has driven you to homosexuality?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

Debra: I remember when my son received his notice from Selective Service also. My bet is that he looked at his two older sisters [who I might add had picked on him] and wondered why HE had to defend THEM. I think his exact words were, "Equal rights should mean equal bullshit." There's never been anything inherently fair about the draft. I remember people quickly marrying to avoid the draft. I think things changed then and married men with a child wouldn't be drafted. These folks then quickly made a child. Dick Cheney used that method to avoid the draft.

There's never been anything fair about social programs either. Nobody goes door to door checking income levels and telling people that they're eligible for aid. It usually involves a social worker who's been put on a case for a particular reason. If one is hospitalized, for instance, and funds run dry for the bills, the hospital may set you up with a social worker who will put you in touch with the place to apply. If there are funds available, and you qualify, you get the aid. If the funds are gone, you get rejected. In a way, we've come full-circle if Horn gets confirmed and gets his wish. While getting married was once a way to obtain a draft deferrment, it would now be a way to qualify for Head Start funding. Does either make sense? I don't think so.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 25, 2001.

'If Debra has to work two jobs (because her taxes that pay for wealth redistribution programs are so high that she can't raise her kids on one job), then who is ignorant for their views?'

For the record, I was a stay at home mom for over 15 years, married to a man who earns a 3 figure income. We did just fine raising our family on one income, paying our taxes and not complaining because some of those taxes went to help others. I work two jobs today because of divorce and the desire to keep our family home until my youngest is out of school.

Here is a question for you j -

There are two five year old boys standing side by side. Both would benefit from a hot lunch at a Head Start program. The first little boy has parents who are married and the second little boy's parents are unmarried. YOU are able to look into both their eyes and tell the first child to sit down and eat while telling the second child to 'go away'. Mind you, the second little boy cannot help the situation he is in. He doesn't even have the ability to understand it. The only thing he knows is that he is hungry.

Now, just 13 years later there is a draft. Both little boys are drafted. YOU expect both to go and risk their lives for YOU because YOU are now too old and too comfortable to fight. Problem is, one child you helped to feed, the other one you didn't.

Would you honestly have the nerve to expect the second little boy to risk his life for YOU?

Look at some of the programs Bush is considering. A case COULD be made that eliminating the Head Start program altogether would be better than one like this. After all, if I set a place at the table for one of my children and refused the other two, I would be brought up on charges. If this country does it to it's children it should be held accountable.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 25, 2001.

Hi Anita,

We must have posted at the same time. It's good to 'see' you. As always, yours is a voice of reason.

Dick Cheney used that method to avoid the draft? All I can do is shake my head. In my opinion any child he works to cut from a program like Head Start should never have to go to war to defend him, his millions and his oil buddies.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 25, 2001.

'AND That makes me wonder why you think it isn't wrong for that same rich country to murder babies.'

And THAT makes ME wonder if the desire for the same rich country to make abortion illegal is so that there will be lots of young men and women to murder by sending them off to war. Ever hear of the 'armies of God'?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 25, 2001.

Or is that 6 figure? I'm not sure. LOL

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 25, 2001.

j I have no ill will toward you per se. I would enjoy a few rounds with you. Life must be boring at your board.

Deb LOL 3 vs 6 I think we'll take the 6.

-- (debs@got.back), May 25, 2001.

Dick Cheney used that method to avoid the draft? LOL That's like me saying that Hillary stayed with Bill so she could get to the WH.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 25, 2001.

Debra, I worked in a Headstart program. Only two children in our program belonged to homes with both of their parents. Two or three belonged to homes with a step-parent. Of the rest, about one third belonged to divorced mothers with some contact with their fathers. The rest belonged to women who had never married the fathers of their children. Of these,some had multiple children with a different father for each.

Headstart might not be needed at all if people made sure they had an adequate education and an adequate income before conceiving children. Belonging to a single parent with little education and few career prospects seemed to be THE major reason for the poverty most of our children lived in.

Would I deny the children food? Of course not. Would I slap their parents silly? A fantasy. Most of what we accomplished with the children was undone by spending their off-school hours in front of the tube with sugar-based snacks. Most of the mothers considered our program free daycare, and they didn't implement the at-home learning activities or nutrition programs we tried to teach them. Most of the mothers did not work, and yet they refused to participate in the required volunteer programs at the center. We didn't throw their children out because we cared about the children. The mothers were worthless parasites. I wonder what values they passed on to those children, who are nearing adulthood.

Every citizen should expect to be called upon to provide support for our nation if we are at war. The reasons we get into wars are a totally separate issue and have more do with who we vote into office.

The same government that undermined the social structure of the extended family in the poor now wants to require marriage in an attempt to bring extended families back into the picture. Disaster again. The government can't teach citizens responsibility. Responsibility is taught at home from an early age by both parents.

-- helen (nkl@nkl.cnk), May 25, 2001.

I see J is lashing out in his charmless "Christian" fashion. He thinks he's a Christian, yet he condemns poor children to improbable realities. He seems to think all adults are responsible, caring people who love their children and provide for them. Nothing is further from the truth.

Let me ask you this, "Christian J." A woman bears three children and the father leaves the family. The woman is a drug addict and overdoses and dies. The children are left without mother or father.

Who will feed them? You? Some "charity"? But what if local charities are so overwhelmed they cannot adequtely support the children, or what if there are no local charities whatsoever in the area of the children?

No "Christian" steps up the plate, including you, our resident hypocrite Christian. The children are alone. Who are you suggesting should take care of these children?

-- poor children can go to hell (says@J.com), May 25, 2001.

Debra,

Not to make light of your situation, but if your taxes hadn't been so high during that 15 years, you probably would have been able to save enough money so that you would only have to work one job now, or possibly even just live off of your savings and continue to be a stay at home mom.

To answer your question, I don't think that either little boy should be provided a hot lunch by the government; and yes, I expect that both should protect this country if the need were to arise. Just as I would expect my own children to protect this country if they were called upon to do so.

I truly believe that you are misguided because you have the mistaken belief that the government owes us citizens happiness. The government owes us no such thing, nor could they ever hope to accomplish such an impossible task. What the government owes every single American citizen is a strong military to defend us from attack, and a framework of laws and courts that allow us the utmost personal liberty so that we may pursue happiness.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

"Let me ask you this, "Christian J." A woman bears three children and the father leaves the family. The woman is a drug addict and overdoses and dies. The children are left without mother or father."

Gee, poor it sounds like those kids are better off without their drug addicted mother.I'd gladly take them in as would alot of christian families. Are you intentionally this rabid?

"Who will feed them? You? Some "charity"? But what if local charities are so overwhelmed they cannot adequtely support the children, or what if there are no local charities whatsoever in the area of the children?"

Then move the children where there are services available. What IS your problem?

"No "Christian" steps up the plate, including you, our resident hypocrite Christian. The children are alone. Who are you suggesting should take care of these children? "

That doesn't even qualify for an answer because it is so ignorant.You are asking a stupid question which is twisting the issue into "look at how cold christians are " to make your non exixtent point.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 25, 2001.

anonymous coward,

I don't "condemn poor children to improbable realities", as their parents seem to do an incredible job of doing just that.

In your little scenario, you casually ignore that the father who leaves his three children behind is responsible, and the drug addict mother is also responsible. Life is tough, and when you have two losers like that as parents, it is even tougher.

I don't know who is going to feed those children. The point is that some extended relative, or friend of the family, or neighbor, or church congregation, or voluntary charitable group would most likely step in to take care of those children in your scenario. That is how it should be, and that is how it would be if we didn't have the massive boondoggle of social wealth redistribution schemes in this country.

Let me ask you this, anonymous coward. If that were your brother or son who left those kids, or your sister or daughter who died of the overdose, what would you do for those kids? And if you as a blood relative aren't concerned enough to willingly take care of them, then why do you believe that it is acceptable for total strangers to be forced to take care of them?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

I'd gladly take them in as would alot of christian families.

Gosh, Marg, this is great news! Now, tell me. Have you now accepted poor children who need a home into your family? Without benefits that is, because that would be government sponsored. I mean, just on your own, out of your own goodwill, have you done this? If not, do you intend to? You say you'd "gladly" do it! I guess I don't need to remind you there are thousands of needy children who need loving homes and caring adults who will feed, clothe, and care for them. I'm so glad you have accepted this tremendous responsibility!

Please let us all know when you are going to take in these needy children! We all are dying to hear about it!

And please, let us know who your adopted children are, and under what circumstances you saved them. I'm sure your story will warm our hearts.

One more question for you, good Christian Marg. You overlooked my question about charities being overwhelmed. For example, in my area, we have only a few places that house homeless men. These shelters can only acccomodate a certain number of men each night, and most of the time that means the overflow is on the streets.

Apply this situation to children's charities. They, too, can only accomodate so many children. Who will take care of the rest, the overflow?

You have said YOU WILL! That's great! And presumably, you and other right-minded Christians will do it without government subsidies, because you don't believe in that. But I don't see this occurring much, especially when the parents are not compensated by our tax monies.

So explain it to me, Marg. After favoring us with your heartwarming story of your own adoption of needy children, tell us how your Christian community is stepping to the plate. Give us some real examples. We especially would love to hear stories of how good Christians like yourself adopted difficult, violent, or disabled children from very troubled and abusive backgrounds. That, too, is very heartwarming.

Thank you again, Marg, for taking care of our needy. And please, let us all know the names of your adopted needy children and the history of how you accepted them into your home, good Christian Marg.

-- Thank God for Marg! (savior@of.children), May 25, 2001.

Marg still the resident loser.I sure would not want Marg anywhere near children. Considering her post regarding dripping down a mothers leg. Face it Magot you have about as much concern as a dead deer in the road. God help you if you have children.

j in an ideal world families would take care of families. Tell us all would you want your buddy there Magot to raise anything? I would not let her raise my fish let alone anything else.

-- (debs@got.back), May 25, 2001.

I don't know who is going to feed those children. The point is that some extended relative, or friend of the family, or neighbor, or church congregation, or voluntary charitable group would most likely step in to take care of those children in your scenario.

Ah, but there often is no caring relative, Christian J, from these troubled backgrounds. No caring aunt or sister or brother who "steps in," no caring grandparents. Many of our poorest people come from broken, troubled, violent backgrounds, and "family" isn't really a description of what they were raised in either.

No family, and the charities are overrun. Who will take care of these children when there's no one in the community to do it, J?

Your "compassionate" conservatism falls apart under the realities of contemporary life. You call yourself a Christian, but you're just another narrow right-wing zealot whose self-righteousness and greed would condemn our most needy children to a hellish street existence befitting a 19th-century Dickens novel.

That's some "social conscience," good Christian J. Thanks for making your position so sickeningly clear.

-- poor children can go to hell (says@J.com), May 25, 2001.

I can't wait to hear all about Marg's adopted children!!

-- Come on Marg!!!! (tell@us.com), May 25, 2001.

Actually, as J is the one who's claiming no government taxes should go to needy children, the burden of proof should fall upon him to prove how HE'S adopted children, not upon the people who advocate government support.

J's philosophy is that people should take care of children, so it's up to J to show us how he has taken responsibility for his philosophy in real terms.

Let's see if J really "walks his talk."

-- Just Setting It Straight (making@clear.com), May 25, 2001.

How come nobody is talking about Tarzan's dick?!? It's all I can think about!!!!!!

-- Maria (obse@ssed.com), May 25, 2001.

All i cun thing bout is bangin dat hoe marg!

-- figger (my@hole.com), May 25, 2001.

Over the years I have taken in kids in trouble, with NO assistance from the government. If I see a child in need, I do what I can to help. What have you done?Hmmmmmmmm?

It is assinine to expect the government to do what parents, extended families and yes, CHURCHES, should be doing for kids in their communities.

You want the government to do, what you, either can't, or won't do.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 25, 2001.

Jeez, Marg. Sometimes, your hypocrisy just amazes me. We're talking about PERMANENT relationships here, Marg, and you already stated that you're on the dole in this thread.

Regarding taking in troubled kids, I [cruel hearted bitch that I am] have ALSO done this on MANY occasions. The Hallmark moment, however, was Christine [well, if Hallmark is still responsible for sympathy cards.] Christine lived with her dad and her grandmother. My understanding was that her mom was in a mental asylum somewhere, although Christine DID receive Precious Moments figurines from her mom on occasion. Her dad called her The Thing. Her grandmother didn't seem to object to this, so Christine ran away from home regularly.

Anyway, Christine would regularly knock on our door seeking asylum. She was familiar with the drill, and immediately called the police to report that she was NOT a run-away, but was spending the night at the home of a friend until her dad "cooled down."

One day, her dad had enough of this "running away" stuff and called the authorities, who put Christine into a "facility." He never called her there, nor did her Grandmother. I doubt her mom even knew she was moved. She continued to call my daughter, however, and one day my daughter said that Christine wanted to know if I'd adopt her. She was already 16 or 17 and the facility would kick her out onto the street when she turned 18.

I spent many a sleepless night over that one. I, certainly, wanted Christine to be healthy and happy, but a permanent decision like adoption is a HUGE step for someone with three kids already. I thought ahead to the educational expenses involved with University and realized I couldn't take on another child.

My daughter told Christine that I'd not responded positively on the adoption issue. It wasn't long afterward that Christine took the subway from her "facility" to visit us at our home. She was nice to me, but I could see in her eyes the [how do I describe this?] Hardness? Hate that life in this facility had provided, combined, perhaps, with a disappointment in me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 25, 2001.

Just like me to screw up the link, eh?

THIS thread

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 25, 2001.

Marg, What have you done to insult Maria, J, or Tarzan. We are good at insulting others, but you are not doing your job Marg. You are a hyprocrite of the worst order.

-- dumbya drinks purple kool-aid (at@whitehouse.functions), May 25, 2001.

Anita, Apparently you do not know the difference between Medicare and medicaid. I pay a premium each month for the insurance. It does not cover the full amount. I pay the difference. I am not on the Dole, as you put it. I worked double shifts every day of my life from the time I graduated until diagnosed.(Over 25 years) I have paid into the system and have NEVER taken from it. I kept my private insurance as long as I could and then medicare AUTOMATICALLY takes over at the 3 year point. I did not apply for it. I signed up for an HMO but, medicare is (here's that word again) automatically billed first. So it is pointless to have extra coverage that doesn't cover anything in addition to what medicare does.

So,anything else? Tell me, what would you do?

I'd say there's a major difference between expecting a handout for everything from heat, foodstamps, housing payments, to medical coverage for someone who has worked their whole life and really wasn't given a choice.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 25, 2001.

The government won't buy the Marlins a new stadium so I'm going awol from the Marines!

-- cowardly logic (put@not.display), May 25, 2001.

Oh, and for the record....I live in a very rural area with about 12 families in our little hamlet. There's a total of 17 kids. I do my part by providing things for the kids to do at church. They like to come here on weekends and do art projects and such.

Because of medical problems, I can't adopt. I can and have acted as a foster care provider when there is a need.That's as permanent as I am allowed to get under the circumstances, Anita.

My friends from church have adopted and have three kids from a nearby village.(2 seperate families)

The kids from church are sponsering a child fom Rowanda.They earn money in the neighborhood and send it off with their letters.

And your point was?

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 25, 2001.

Ah yes, another episode from ‘The Fucked Up Life Of Anita’.

-- Lay Down (on@the.couch), May 25, 2001.

Some fuck head is trying to hijack my handle. It's probably Maria, since she has so much hatred for the other women on this forum. Just so you guys know I've been on vacation for the last couple of weeks. Anyone posting as a lap dog to Maria in my name is not me.

Fuck you troll. Get a life, get a name.

-- The REAL Lay Down (on@the.couch), May 25, 2001.

No another episode from the resident hypocrit. See me, I've done this and I've done that. I am good, really I am. I may or may not drip down my moms leg, but I am good, honest. Give it up you skank hoe. At least Anita tells truth not in the hypocritical fashion that you do. If a child ever came to your door, I'd only hope the authorities would intervene. Now, you are someone I would report. You have stated on another thread your true feelings about dripping down moms leg? You sure the hell did.

See Marg backpedal.

See Marg get called out.

See Marg stay.

Dumb Marg.

-- (cut@this.hypocrit), May 25, 2001.

Dear Cut this,

A "skank" smells his own "hoe" first.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 25, 2001.

and really wasn't given a choice

I think that was the point Debra was making, Marg. Some children aren't offered a choice. Instead of honoring that statement as truth, you railed her as an incompetent mother seeking assistance [which the first response indicated would be the case.]

Most of us here know Debra, Marg. SOME of us are even familiar with your background, assuming you're the Marg2 poster on TB2000.

I'm QUITE familiar with the differences between Medicare and Medicaid, Marg. My mom receives Medicare because she's 88. She pays extra for the part B coverage and also purchases supplementary insurance for what Medicare doesn't pay. My nephew [who lost his executive brain in a dune-buggy accident several years back] is UNDER 65 and receives Medicaid. He was too old to be covered under my brother's insurance plan, so, again, there was no choice.

I'm curious to understand why you can post to TB2000 with no rancor, but when you come to THIS forum, you tend to froth at the mouth. Is it because there are folks here who disagree with your opinions?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 25, 2001.

Dear Skank if I could ever get my hands on you I would. I'd love you all over. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO baby.

PS dumb skank, males do not smell their own hoes. Now lay down on the couch and lets see what happens next. And remember, to forgive your enemies,not just the dripping ones.

-- marg the hoe (cut@this.skank), May 25, 2001.

Anita, it is quite simple really. See Marg, and I am being polite, cant spew her hatred there the way she/he/it can here. She/he/it enjoys the liberty that she/he/it is unable to fully enjoy elsewhere. Thus it behooves the skank to come and post in TRUE MARG fashion. But knowing you Anita, I am fully aware you have already known this and are making a nice gesture to extend a friendly hand.

Now onto the Skank: Anita is correct. Many here know the real Deb. We like her. As it was pointed out at the very beginning you were one of the first select new idiots to jump all over her. Labeling, slandering as you have done since your arrival. Why dont you mosey on over to the Church board, live right or stay and behave? Let me tell you why you wont. Because you cant. You have finally found home. A place where you can belittle, accuse, hurt, frustrate and falsely accuse.

Many shall say in that day "Lord have we not----fill in the blank. My words there. But you do know the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say. Might I make a suggestion? Do stay. For the sake of all the regulars. I shall receive immense joy watching them kick your ass all over the Wild Wild West.

-- skank hoe (cut@this.marg), May 25, 2001.

Wonder away Anita, and never , never make assumptions.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 25, 2001.

Lars, Personally I think women should sign up for the draft if men have to. There are a lot of advantages to being trained and gaining experience in the service that doesn't exist in civilian life. It also allows people to get training they may not be able to afford otherwise. Some fields of work benefit from the stronger degree of discipline provided by the military which does not exist in civilian education.

A lot of civilian jobs have historically been filled by trained and experienced ex-military personal. These positions are now suffering from the lack of these people.

Take aircraft maintenance for instance, civilian airlines would hire people who had already been trained and held years of experience which insured quality work. Now they have to depend on untrained, inexperienced people. Some who are used to sliding and doing less than quality work if they can get away with it.

Instead of trying to provide handouts to people for continued education, it would behoove the government to increase the military to train and use troops for programs benefiting the country.

That way people could earn their education, gain marketable experiences, and provide needed services around the country. No hand outs. People would have pride in their accomplishments and many needed projects could be accomplished.

I think most civilians are unaware of the diversity of professions the military holds.

The Bush administration dictating the marital status of people is sick. I thought he was for getting government out of our lives.

Headstart was formed to help children who were burdened by the circumstances of birth, through no fault of their own, to help them get a "head start" normally received by children in traditional, financially sound nuclear families.
What I can't understand is why now, when the "welfare state" has been reduced so drastically, there is so much complaining about it. There is so much controversy about government handouts to children, elderly and the poor, yet Bush is handing out million dollar "incentives" to energy companies with no public outcry. Could this be a ploy to divert attention away from the government (taxpayer) funding of corporate welfare?

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 25, 2001.

go to hell,

You can always conjure up the worst case scenario where there is no person or institution that would help these children, but in reality, I doubt that number would be anywhere near as high as in the picture that you are trying to paint. Nonetheless, life is tough. Sometimes there will be those who are unhelped. How exactly is that any different then the system that we have now?

No citizen should be forced, through taxes, to support the mistakes and misfortunes of other citizens. If they want to do so voluntarily, then that is great. If our tax burden wasn't so heavy, then there would be more resources for those "overrun" charities of which you speak. Just how is it that you believe that a myriad of government bureaucracy and incompetence between the need of a hungry child and the money that is confiscated from my wallet, is more efficient than me buying groceries for the neighbor lady whose husband left her and whose kids are hungry?

If "compassionate coservatism falls apart under the realities of contemporary life", it is because of the tremendous tax burden that is confiscated to fuel the fires of the welfare state.

And don't lecture me on my "social conscience", anonymously posting one. I note that when I asked you about what you would do if our hypothetical children were extended relatives of yours, you dodged the question. Could it be as you sit here lecturing me, that you are part of the problem?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

Just Setting It Straight, aka yet another anonymous coward with an ever-changing handle,

Your premise that some burden of proof should fall upon me is laughable. Why, because you say so? LOL. I have done, and will continue to do, beneficial acts that impact the needy children whom I encounter in my community.

Have you ever opened your home to two cold and hungry children whose parents were unable to feed and shelter them? Or do you just sit in front of the television all day watching Jerry Springer while complaining that your government check isn't large enough, and that those who actually contribute to society should be taxed at an even higher rate?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

Anita,

Your case with Christine is a perfect example of the hard reality of life. Your first priority is to your children. My first priority is to mine. Somehow, I am labeled as a cold-hearted s.o.b. for having the brains to realize this.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

j for the first time in life I agree with you. And to answer the question I do believe we all at some point in time have helped out children. Even not as christians.

-- j is not a sob (ok@I.surrender), May 26, 2001.

Don't worry about the labels, J. This is a VERY diverse forum. Some folks will agree with you and others will tell you that you're hell- bound. [It WOULD be nice, however, if folks stopped thinking that you're Dennis.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 26, 2001.

Anita:"I'm QUITE familiar with the differences between Medicare and Medicaid, Marg. My mom receives Medicare because she's 88. She pays extra for the part B coverage and also purchases supplementary insurance for what Medicare doesn't pay. My nephew [who lost his executive brain in a dune-buggy accident several years back] is UNDER 65 and receives Medicaid. He was too old to be covered under my brother's insurance plan, so, again, there was no choice. "

Apparently you Do NOT understand the difference between them. Your statement above is not accurate.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 26, 2001.

poster right before Anita,

Thank you for your kind words. Which poster were you in the thread, as I am not sure to which question you refer?



Anita,

Thanks for the support. I, like you, rarely get ruffled by those on this forum.

I think that those who actually believe that I am Dennis Olson are few in number. Those who continue to post as such because they believe that it still irritates me, however, are more numerous. So it is.

By the way, I believe that I spotted cpr incognito on the "Favorite All time quotes by old forum members" thread. I haven't seen him on this board in ages.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 26, 2001.

How so, Marg? My nephew was disabled, but he wasn't labeled "disabled." I DO understand that Medicare covers BOTH the elderly and disabled. Is that what you meant?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 26, 2001.

Exactly, Anita. Because you capped UNDER. Medicaid is income based whereas medicare is age and disability. My apologies, you do understand.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 26, 2001.

Medicare insurance is a benefit of SSDI disability benefits, which convert to retirement benefits at age 65. People who are disabled (AND have paid into the system), or retired have SSDI or retirement benefits. Monthly SSDI amounts or retirement benefits are based on the amount of money paid into the system. With Medicare, hospitalization Part A is free, outpatient Part B costs $50.00 per month this year.

SSI (welfare) benefits are for those who are below the FBR (Federal Benefit Rate) of $530 for an individual, or $796 for a married couple. People who have welfare based benefits get Medicaid Insurance. SSI limits assets to $2000 for an individual and $3000 for a couple.

Some retired people who have low SSA retirement benefits also get SSI, to bring them up to the poverty level. They might also have retirement benefits (and Medicare) and SSI (with Medicaid).

Hope this will help explain the Medicare /Medicaid thing.

suzy

-- suzy (nowherenow@nowhere.now), May 26, 2001.

I always thought Anita was actually Dennis Olson, but now I am starting to have my doubts.

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), May 26, 2001.

Cherri, I thought the military was having to cut back on the numbers of people they employ?

-- helen (need@real.one), May 26, 2001.

Cherri--

Thank you for your POV. I thought you might feel that way. Being a Leftie who is sympathetic to the military puts you in an unusual spot. But it shouldn't be that way--the military is the most purely socialist enterprise going. It is very good at motivating group behavior, performing group services such as education, health and in maintaining equal rights. (even tho those equal rights are mostly spread among the "lower classes".)

I have always wondered what Libertarians advocate for defense of the country---private armies? Mercenaries? What? I think the problem that the Left has with the military is not in its collective nature but in its nagging attachment to motives like honor, committment and patriotism. The Left is missing the boat methinks.

I have missed tne Bush-marriage story. What, does he want to do, pass a law requiring marriage? That might be a trifle unconstitutional. Yes, he does want to restructure tax laws to reduce the famous "marriage tax". That is good IMO.

My guess is that he is using the presidency as a bully pulpit to encourage marriage. If that is all he is doing, he is marely in step with the times. Marriage does seem to be back in fashion. Indeed it never went out of fashion among certain minority groups like Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans.

As a formerly married person, I support a national emphasis on marriage. IMO it is a better way to live--better for adults, better for kids, better for the economy, better for public health (physical and mental).

I am speaking statistically of course. There are some marriages that need to die.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 26, 2001.

How come conservatives are so opposed to government involvement in gun purchases but not in their family's lives?

-- The REAL Lay Down (on@the.couch), May 26, 2001.

Ever seen a carwash in France?

-- The REAL jig siggy (sig@jiggy.sig), May 27, 2001.

Cherri, I thought the military was having to cut back on the numbers of people they employ?

Hellen,They have been cut back, to a criminal extent in my opinion. The military was always a place where a person without the means to go to college could go to get training and experience in needed fields. A lot of those feilds got all of their civilian employees from trained ex-military personel. This has left huge holes in training for needed fields, likeaircraft maintence. The military is extrememly strict, which is important in every field, but most importantin areas where human lifes are at stake. Military personal are trianed to check every detail, sliding or doing a half asses, partial job is never accepted. By the time these people leave the military, they understand the importance of doing a job right. Unfortunatly, the way sociaty is today, this type of standard is not taught in schools of higher learning.

The lack of military trianed people is evedent in almost all areas these days, NASA, airlines, production. The attitude that is causing damage, such as people not inspecting pipelines, preventitive maintence that isn't being done, comes from people "thinking" it isn't important, or from laziness. The military installs pride in doing a job right, discipline that many jobs demand if they are to be done right. The country would benifit from an increase in military, it would give masny the means to provide themselves with a positive future.

It doesn't make any sence to take away all of the means for large portions of American people from being able to work and make a future for themselves.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 27, 2001.

Ah Cherri, looks like ‘your’ military training didn’t include basic spelling and diction. Dummy.

-- Big (mouth@little.mind), May 27, 2001.