Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering that the state is paying for the clothing, why shouldn't they be required to use a low cost alternative? Besides, I have no problem shopping in a thrift store or Goodwill for myself...so I really see no problem with this premise. Actually, I just bought a ton of clothing for our baby girl (due in August) from consignment shops. My husband bought a couple new things from Target (hey, let the man be excited that he's going to be a new dad) but aside from that, we have all used clothing and I'm actually pretty proud of the deals I got. I ended up paying about 10% of what I would have paid if the clothing was new. So, in the grand scheme of things, the clothing is in good shape and it will save the state money, so what's the big deal?
What's wrong with recycling clothing? Pretty materialistic complaint. Why don't we just abolish thrift stores? I mean, who would actually wear that stuff, right?
This thread is ridiculous.
Feel free to send them top of the line clothing, because we all know that's what's important in life.
Greedy phony Republicans espouse smaller government and less intervention, and then turn around and offer these types of policies. Blinded by their own greed, they then attempt to justify them.
Why is it that the Right seldom is?
It has to do with cutting back on expenses. Sorry, but I'm all for big gov't when the gov't is just handing money out. The taxpayer deserves a say in how that money is used; we also deserve some kind of assurance that things are being done in a cost effective manner.
These are foster kids, btw, not welfare recipients. They are in the system b/c their parents screwed up, not b/c they are trying to milk the system (like their parents probably did/do). Foster parents must go through extensive screening and training and the vast majority have the best interests of the children in mind. Many of them probably use their own money to buy the children clothing and fun things/activities. If they want to use their own money to buy expensive clothing, fine, but at the same time, that child is still a part of the foster system and is ultimately being cared for by the state, which needs to do things as cheaply as possible.
They just take the person with the debit card with them to the store to assist in the shopping.
So according to you, because a small percentage of the individuals in question run around selling their stamps, we should just chuck the whole system? What is YOUR solution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
Peple hurting bad enough to sell government benefits will go through the effort.
Ooh please, they go through the effort because they are NOT hurting.. If you need food bad enough, you arent about to sell your food stamps for $.60 on the dollar, and go pay cash
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
This is all about Republicans trying to label the disadvantaged and poor as less than for political reasons.
Actually its to protect the disadvantaged child to make sure they get their clothing allotment.. Why do you not care for the child? Typical Democrat..
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
More of the same... turn the middle against the poor, and end all subsidies and social service safety nets.
Spare me the amount of bs.. No one is turning the middle against the poor, nor are they ending subsidies or social safety nets..
btw, my family has done my part and adopted 2, my mother adopted 3, my aunts adopted 2, in fact there are over 2 dozen adopted individuals floating around my family..
Have you done your part? How many have YOU adopted?
Thats the fake outrage from the left over this because it doesnt even cut back on any expenses. it just makes sure the child gets the money to spend on clothing as it was originally intended.
Thats the fake outrage from the left over this because it doesnt even cut back on any expenses. it just makes sure the child gets the money to spend on clothing as it was originally intended.
Yeah, you're right. The child ends up getting more bang for the buck in this scenario, though...apparently that is an issue for the left.
Yeah, you're right. The child ends up getting more bang for the buck in this scenario, though...apparently that is an issue for the left.
It does make me wonder why the left hates the poor innocent foster children who are just victims.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but I'm all for big gov't when the gov't is just handing money out. The taxpayer deserves a say in how that money is used; we also deserve some kind of assurance that things are being done in a cost effective manner. 
