Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Anchorage Daily News Reports Of course, the government was involved in getting these people the children.
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Anchorage Daily News Reports Of course, the government was involved in getting these people the children. 33761[/snapback] I never noticed before how the Anchorage Daily News's background on their web site is such a nice color of Air Force BDU blue...
VABills Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I never noticed before how the Anchorage Daily News's background on their web site is such a nice color of Air Force BDU blue... 33768[/snapback] Not fair. I just spit a mouthful of water all over my screen.
KD in CA Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 How the hell do they give people five kids if they live in a trailer home? Do they even make trailers designed for 7 people? Well, hopefully we can count on our prison system to mete out the appropriate punishment to these two once they get inside.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 How the hell do they give people five kids if they live in a trailer home? Do they even make trailers designed for 7 people? Well, hopefully we can count on our prison system to mete out the appropriate punishment to these two once they get inside. 33777[/snapback] If I were warden... There's no doubt this particular newspaper article would make it into General Population the day these folks arrived.
PastaJoe Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Of course, the government was involved in getting these people the children. I assume then that you support more funding for Child Welfare services so that they have enough qualified workers to run proper background checks and make sufficient checks after placement to reduce the chance of this happening in the future. Just like teaching, when it comes to children everyone wants the best but too many people don't want to pay for the best.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 I assume then that you support more funding for Child Welfare services so that they have enough qualified workers to run proper background checks and make sufficient checks after placement to reduce the chance of this happening in the future. Just like teaching, when it comes to children everyone wants the best but too many people don't want to pay for the best. 33811[/snapback] There's your typical liberal response. More money is always the answer. There's just never enough to adequately accomplish simple tasks.
PastaJoe Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Child welfare is a simple task? I find it hard to believe that you don't value children's welfare. There are more important things in life than tax cuts.
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I assume then that you support more funding for Child Welfare services so that they have enough qualified workers to run proper background checks and make sufficient checks after placement to reduce the chance of this happening in the future. Just like teaching, when it comes to children everyone wants the best but too many people don't want to pay for the best. 33811[/snapback] Good thing Kerry's pushing that tax-cut plan of his, isn't it?
PastaJoe Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 You mean the tax cut plan that would increase funding for children's services and education by reversing some of the Bush tax cuts? I'm all for it. In fact why stop at $200k, I say roll them all back to what they were under Clinton. We did quite well with them.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 Child welfare is a simple task? I find it hard to believe that you don't value children's welfare. There are more important things in life than tax cuts. 33835[/snapback] As always, you reduce something to fit your simpleton politics. The government has more than enough money. Too damn much. Pretending otherwise shows how foolish you are. This year the Fed will take in over $2,000,000,000,000.00. That's more wealth than all but a handful of countries entire economies for the year. Yet according to you, it's STILL not enough money. You can pretend all you want that the government solves problems and that it's a money issue when they don't. The reality is that giving away the power to faceless bureaucratic entities centered away from the real world has caused these problems to grow even bigger and have further reaching and more dire consequences. The ultimate ripple effect. People in the local community expect someone else to handle it, rather than get involved and make the area stronger. The adage "you can't fight city hall" has never rang so true.
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 You mean the tax cut plan that would increase funding for children's services and education by reversing some of the Bush tax cuts? I'm all for it. In fact why stop at $200k, I say roll them all back to what they were under Clinton. We did quite well with them. 33855[/snapback] Yeah, that's what I mean...the tax cut plan that would increase funding...
IUBillsFan Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Child welfare is a simple task? I find it hard to believe that you don't value children's welfare. There are more important things in life than tax cuts. 33835[/snapback] I think if you are on welfare you should be prevented from having more children.
PastaJoe Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 You say it's a simple task, and then you accuse me of simplifying the issue? Please. Yes the gov't takes in money, but right now is spending more than it takes in, with no call to reduce spending. Therefore the only alternative to paying for what we spend is to raise taxes. And where the money is appropriated makes a difference. I'd rather spend a small portion of the $200+ billion going to Iraq on our Child Welfare services.
VABills Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 You say it's a simple task, and then you accuse me of simplifying the issue? Please. Yes the gov't takes in money, but right now is spending more than it takes in, with no call to reduce spending. Therefore the only alternative to paying for what we spend is to raise taxes. And where the money is appropriated makes a difference. I'd rather spend a small portion of the $200+ billion going to Iraq on our Child Welfare services. 33889[/snapback] How about laying off some of the non-working government employee's. Or federal programs to give money to farmers for not farming. Or to igloo dwellers just for living in the nations largest state.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 You say it's a simple task, and then you accuse me of simplifying the issue? Please. Yes the gov't takes in money, but right now is spending more than it takes in, with no call to reduce spending. Therefore the only alternative to paying for what we spend is to raise taxes. And where the money is appropriated makes a difference. I'd rather spend a small portion of the $200+ billion going to Iraq on our Child Welfare services. 33889[/snapback] Thanks for missing the point, yet again. Not surprising. Let me know the last time the government reduced spending. Last time I checked, there wasn't anything in the Constitution about Child Welfare Services.
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Last time I checked, there wasn't anything in the Constitution about Child Welfare Services. 33922[/snapback] Last I checked, child welfare was the state's responsibility. But hey, let's put a line item for it in the federal budget anyways. We'll pay for it by cutting taxes...
VABills Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Thanks for missing the point, yet again. Not surprising. Let me know the last time the government reduced spending. Last time I checked, there wasn't anything in the Constitution about Child Welfare Services. 33922[/snapback] It's right next to the one that says someone can kill their children.
IowaBill Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 AD, I am sure there is nothing in the constitution regarding Child Welfare services, and yes DCT, you're right, it is typically the responsibility of the state. It is frequnetly carried out, however, by local government. Local government that relies on a number of revenue sources to carry out such services. Revenue sources that include local taxes (property, local sales tax share), state taxes (primarily income, but other sources as well such as user fees and mandated surcharges) and federal dollars (almost entirely income taxes). So while the constitution doesn't mandate child welfare programs, federal tax levies certainly play a role in the ability for those services to be properly provided. I don't think then answer is to give them more money, but I am equally sure that cutting funds to such services is a bad idea, whether they are constitutionally mandeted or not, whether the state is reposnisble for them or not. Probably the dollars being spent could be done more effectively. Like it or not, all level of government has a role in such services, and I would agree with Pasta Joe I would rather see more dollars to services like this than fighting resistance to a misguided occupation in the middle east.
Recommended Posts