The following, is an email making the rounds. I was able to get very close the the format that I received it in. I really HATE the dirt in politics and emails like this make me hate republicans.
=============================================

As Benjamin Franklin once said, ”When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic”. I think we are very close to that point. Have a nice day!!


Wake up America

The new breadwinner in the family...
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd456/lancewen/Blackswithlotsofkids.jpg

An
emergency room physician told me that a woman in
her late 20's came to the ER today with her
8thpregnancy. She told
the first doctor she saw: "My Mama told me that
I am the
breadwinner for the family." He asked
her to explain. She said that she can make
babies, and babies get money from the State for
the family.

It goes like this: The Grandma calls the
Department of Child &
Family Services, and states that the unemployed
daughter is not capable of caring for all of her
kids. DCFS agrees, and tells her the children will need
to go into foster care.
The Grandma then
volunteers to be the foster
parent, and receives a check for
$1500 per child each month in Illinois.

$144,000 annually,
tax-free and nobody
has to go to work!

In fact, they get more if there is no
husband/father/man in the home! Not
to mention free healthcare (Medicaid), plus a
monthly card entitling them to free groceries
and a voucher for 250 free Obamaphone minutes
each month. This does not include WIC and other
welfare benefits...that they are "entitled" to.

Indeed, Grandma was correct that her fertile daughter is the
"breadwinner" for the family.

This is how the liberal
politicians spend our tax dollars. When this
generous program was invented in the '60s, the
Great Society architects forgot to craft
an end date... and now we are hopelessly
overrun with people who vote only for those who
will continue to keep them on the dole.... No wonder our country is broke!

Worse, the Muslims have been paying attention, and by mandating that each Muslim family have eleven children, they will soon replace the voting bloc above and can be running this country within 25 years. Read the above again, until it sinks in, and then ask yourself if your Children, Grandchildren, and Great Grandchildren will survive these severe changes to America!!!

Are YOU alarmed yet? Is anybody listening?

Is this a GREAT COUNTRY or
what...? Don't forget to pay your
taxes! There
are a lot of "breadwinners"
depending on
you!

Unfortunately killjoyklown, what the chain email is describing is all too often the case. I have seen it firsthand in my career as a registered nurse. Especially within inner city hospitals that I have worked in, this describes a significant percentage of my patients. They sit around all day and ask when their pain meds are due. Their children visit, run wild in the unit, and roll around on the filthy, germ-ridden floor.

I have even known people of low socioeconomic status in nursing school who graduated with me but never became licensed because working didn't make as much financial sense as producing another child. Someone else I know worked two part time jobs as a nurse but quit one of them because it caused her to earn too much money to qualify for her disability payments.

The social programs are abused terribly in this country. You can hate the republicans all you want, but the system is in serious need of an overhaul, and I say that as a long time liberal.

Unfortunately killjoyklown, what the chain email is describing is all too often the case. I have seen it firsthand in my career as a registered nurse. Especially within inner city hospitals that I have worked in, this describes a significant percentage of my patients. They sit around all day and ask when their pain meds are due. Their children visit, run wild in the unit, and roll around on the filthy, germ-ridden floor.

I have even known people of low socioeconomic status in nursing school who graduated with me but never became licensed because working didn't make as much financial sense as producing another child. Someone else I know worked two part time jobs as a nurse but quit one of them because it caused her to earn too much money to qualify for her disability payments.

The social programs are abused terribly in this country. You can hate the republicans all you want, but the system is in serious need of an overhaul, and I say that as a long time liberal.

But this email was built to inflame emotions in an election year. In my book if a program is broke you fix it. You don't point the blame at the other guy. The republicans have been in power lots of years sense this law went into effect and they did nothing to correct any of the problems you mentioned.

Well if the idea is to profit from foster children as represented, they don't need a daughter producing children to do that. There are plenty of foster children already available for placement. What they need is more money from the state because the state does not pay anywhere near what the ad claims. In Illinois the rate is a little over 400 dollars per month per child not anywhere near the $1,500 rate claimed in the ad. And that $400 must cover food, clothing and incidental expenses. And Medicaid only benefits the child and not the foster parent, and the foster parents cannot benefit from other social support programs (e.g. food stamps) for the kids if they are being reimbursed as a foster parent - no double dipping.

So the ad is grossly and intentionally in error on several fronts. Unfortunately this kind of right wing/Republican/Tea Party misinformation is ubiquitous and crucial to the movements deceptions. I have a childhood friend who has received (documented) more than 100K dollars for not planting crops. Why don't you see the right wingers/Republican/Tea Partiers send out emails protesting that FACT instead of this false garbage? My guess is because most of those folks receiving agricultural price supports are card carrying members of the Republican Party - all those Red State folks. The difference is you don't have to lie about the Red State federal supports for them to be true.

This is clearly nothing but racist dog whistles. Republicans won't cut the military budget but complain about giving any money to poor people, money that amounts to a miniscule percentage of the total. For some reason it's OK to give money in the form of tax cuts to the rich (it does generally go to white people after all), but God forbid we give any money to the blacks.

Well if the idea is to profit from foster children as represented, they don't need a daughter producing children to do that. There are plenty of foster children already available for placement. What they need is more money from the state because the state does not pay anywhere near what the ad claims. In Illinois the rate is a little over 400 dollars per month per child not anywhere near the $1,500 rate claimed in the ad. And that $400 must cover food, clothing and incidental expenses. And Medicaid only benefits the child and not the foster parent, and the foster parents cannot benefit from other social support programs (e.g. food stamps) for the kids if they are being reimbursed as a foster parent - no double dipping.

So the ad is grossly and intentionally in error on several fronts. Unfortunately this kind of right wing/Republican/Tea Party misinformation is ubiquitous and crucial to the movements deceptions.

That does sound a lot different. It would be a real disaster if people could make over a $100,000 per year just because they can't care for a dozen kids they have just to get federal aid. Excuse me but I just know it can't be that easy to get money from our government.

That does sound a lot different. It would be a real disaster if people could make over a $100,000 per year just because they can't care for a dozen kids they have just to get federal aid. Excuse me but I just know it can't be that easy to get money from our government.

You are right, it is not that easy.

This is clearly nothing but racist dog whistles. Republicans won't cut the military budget but complain about giving any money to poor people, money that amounts to a miniscule percentage of the total. For some reason it's OK to give money in the form of tax cuts to the rich (it does generally go to white people after all), but God forbid we give any money to the blacks.

Did you miss this reference:


Worse, the Muslims have been paying attention, and by mandating that each Muslim family have eleven children, they will soon replace the voting bloc above and can be running this country within 25 years. Read the above again, until it sinks in, and then ask yourself if your Children, Grandchildren, and Great Grandchildren will survive these severe changes to America!!!

Can anybody really believe this garbage?

Killjoy, we know the ad is is flawed. However, the sad part about it isn't that it demonizes dems, blacks, latinos, or welfare mothers, or whatever.

Instead, the sad part about the email is that its racial undertones and ridiculousness veil the underlying, legitimate problem of social program abuse, by distracting people exactly like you, making you zero in on those things, which just helps to further undermine efforts at fixing the system. I am sure that you mean well, but reactions like yours help to empower the makers of these chain emails by granting them the attention that they are clearly designed to garner. And now here you are, spreading this garbage out on sciforums, circulating it even further. Makes you think twice about who you're really helping, doesn't it?

Did you miss this reference:

Can anybody really believe this garbage?

Yes, they believe it because it's what they wanted to believe anyway.

Killjoy, we know the ad is is flawed. However, the sad part about it isn't that it demonizes dems, blacks, latinos, or welfare mothers, or whatever.

Instead, the sad part about the email is that its racial undertones and ridiculousness veil the underlying, legitimate problem of social program abuse, by distracting people exactly like you, making you zero in on those things, which just helps to further undermine efforts at fixing the system. I am sure that you mean well, but reactions like yours help to empower the makers of these chain emails by granting them the attention that they are clearly designed to garner. And now here you are, spreading this garbage out on sciforums, circulating it even further. Makes you think twice about who you're really helping, doesn't it?

Actually I think the people on this science forum will critique it for what it is which may be a big help to everyone reading it who has received this email. In any event that was my intent. If others think my posting here was the wrong thing to do, please speak up.

But this email was built to inflame emotions in an election year. In my book if a program is broke you fix it. You don't point the blame at the other guy. The republicans have been in power lots of years sense this law went into effect and they did nothing to correct any of the problems you mentioned.

This is about Illinois laws, and I believe they've been mainly run by Dems for a long time (last time they voted for a Republican President was in 1988)

As to the veracity of the numbers, thankfully they are wrong.

But not that wrong:

Guardians of children under DFCS care (foster kids) get between $384 and $471 per child depending on age.

For 8 kids, 3>12, 2 >8, 1 >4, 1 >1 and 1 newborn, the state of Illinois would provide $3,468.

They would also provide under the SNAP program, $1,502 (family of 10) for food stamps.

They would also provide free medical care, which at an average value of ~$200 per kid per month is $1,600

A free cell phone is available via SafeLink, but it's not funded by the State.

That comes to a total of $6,560 per month, or $78,720 tax free income.

Which would make the Email's contention about the fertile mom being the Breadwinner of the family correct.

For a while.

Because it takes a while to have that many kids and kids grow up and that money then goes away, so over a period of twenty or so years this sort of thing might be possible, but it's not really something that I think that many people do to scam the system either.

This is about Illinois laws, and I believe they've been mainly run by Dems for a long time (last time they voted for a Republican President was in 1988)

As to the veracity of the numbers, thankfully they are wrong.

But not that wrong:

Guardians of children under DFCS care (foster kids) get between $384 and $471 per child depending on age.

For 8 kids, 3>12, 2 >8, 1 >4, 1 >1 and 1 newborn, the state of Illinois would provide $3,468.

They would also provide under the SNAP program, $1,502 (family of 10) for food stamps.

They would also provide free medical care, which at an average value of ~$200 per kid per month is $1,600

A free cell phone is available via SafeLink, but it's not funded by the State.

That comes to a total of $6,560 per month, or $78,720 tax free income.

Which would make the Email's contention about the fertile mom being the Breadwinner of the family correct.

For a while.

Because it takes a while to have that many kids and kids grow up and that money then goes away, so over a period of twenty or so years this sort of thing might be possible, but it's not really something that I think that many people do to scam the system either.

So some states could be more of a problem than others. From reading that email I got the feeling he was talking about the U.S. as in a federal law. I suspect you might be right that it's not much of a problem as the writer is trying to make it. However, it's obviously a right wing dirty tricks propaganda. Maybe the Dems are just as bad, but I sure haven't seen it. I've seen many other emails that are even worse. I never pass them on and I mostly delete the worst ones.

This is about Illinois laws, and I believe they've been mainly run by Dems for a long time (last time they voted for a Republican President was in 1988)

As to the veracity of the numbers, thankfully they are wrong.

But not that wrong:

Guardians of children under DFCS care (foster kids) get between $384 and $471 per child depending on age.


But not that wrong? LOL

Please do show where Democrats publish this kind of crap and in equal numbers.

I think there are people who want to foster extreme views on either side of the aisle.

I lean Repbulican, but I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

Sure, as I pointed out, you could milk the system for quite a bit of money, if you want to keep having kids after kids after kids.

So?

Do we design these programs to deal with the extremes or with the norm?

Could we design a system that makes this practice not pay, and if we came up with one, and someone did have this many kids anyway, aren't we just hurting the kids?

"Sorry, your mom went over the kid allotment with your other siblings, no pudding for you."

Why do people not check snopes.com on things like this? By its own terms, it's at least triple hearsay by the time you read it, which means its credibility should hover right around zero. In this case, the email is almost certainly a paranoid fantasy, and 100% certainly wrong in its details. (I can't post links, but go to snopes.com/politics/taxes/breadwinner.asp).

Even if there were states where this sort of abuse were possible on the scale mentioned, those States would change those laws lickety-split as soon as it became public knowledge.

But not that wrong?

Yes, because apparently one can make nearly 80k a year, without working, just by having kids in Illinois and having your Grandmother raise them as Foster parents.

What the email doesn't make clear, and I think this is true, is I don't think the Mother could legally live with her children to have them treated as Foster children.

And so yes, a mother could do this, but would they?

I don't think many would.

Which is why I said: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

Yes, because apparently one can make nearly 80k a year, without working, just by having kids in Illinois and having your Grandmother raise them as Foster their parent.

Uh, no - it would be the grandmother that would get the money. And do the work of raising them.

I'm frankly just kinda baffled that this email tries to ignore the expenses and work associated with raising a child - especially, right on the heels of the GOP making a big stink about how being a housewife is "real work" and all. Does anybody here really think that they'd end up with more disposable income if they added both a kid and $1500 a month to their balance sheets? I sure as hell don't. But then, I live in an extremely expensive area (and expect to pay for my children's college educations) so maybe I'm biased...

Why do people not check snopes.com on things like this? By its own terms, it's at least triple hearsay by the time you read it, which means its credibility should hover right around zero. In this case, the email is almost certainly a paranoid fantasy, and 100% certainly wrong in its details. (I can't post links, but go to snopes.com/politics/taxes/breadwinner.asp).

Even if there were states where this sort of abuse were possible on the scale mentioned, those States would change those laws lickety-split as soon as it became public knowledge.

Good find:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/breadwinner.asp

I plan to forward that link to the email source. Thank you.:D

Good find:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/breadwinner.asp

I plan to forward that link to the email source. Thank you.:D

This has a much better analysis I think.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/fostering-a-fortune/

This has a much better analysis I think.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/fostering-a-fortune/

Thanks I'll bookmark that page for future reference.

This is about Illinois laws, and I believe they've been mainly run by Dems for a long time (last time they voted for a Republican President was in 1988)

As to the veracity of the numbers, thankfully they are wrong.

But not that wrong:

Guardians of children under DFCS care (foster kids) get between $384 and $471 per child depending on age.

For 8 kids, 3>12, 2 >8, 1 >4, 1 >1 and 1 newborn, the state of Illinois would provide $3,468.

They would also provide under the SNAP program, $1,502 (family of 10) for food stamps.

Assuming they qualify for SNAP, not all foster parents do qualify for SNAP. Two, SNAP was not included in the number used in the ad. And $300 of your SNAP number is totally not related to the foster children. So your number is overstated by $300 per month.



They would also provide free medical care, which at an average value of ~$200 per kid per month is $1,600

Do they cut a check for healthcare and send it to the foster parents or do they give healthcare benefits to the foster parents? No they don't. So that $200/per child is bogus. They only reimburse healthcare providers for healthcare services rendered. So you have overstated reimbursement by at least $800 per month.



A free cell phone is available via SafeLink, but it's not funded by the State.

Safe link is not a feature that has anything to do with foster care. It is available to people based on income, and has nothing to do with the foster parent program.



That comes to a total of $6,560 per month, or $78,720 tax free income.

Not if you use old fashioned math and logic.



Which would make the Email's contention about the fertile mom being the Breadwinner of the family correct.

For a while.

Because it takes a while to have that many kids and kids grow up and that money then goes away, so over a period of twenty or so years this sort of thing might be possible, but it's not really something that I think that many people do to scam the system either.

No it doesn't, you were overstating reimbursements and assuming that all of the payments were pure profit and that the grandparents incurred zero costs for the kids and you are ignoring the fact that the ad specifically ruled out the expense reimbursements you threw in. If the grandparents refused to feed, house and cloth the kids, they would not be foster parents for long.

If you do the math the right way, the annual reimbursement works out to $56.040. That is a far cry from your number and the original number in the ad. Both numbers are flat out wrong and grossly overstated.

http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/faq/faq_faq_foster.shtml

Yes, because apparently one can make nearly 80k a year, without working, just by having kids in Illinois and having your Grandmother raise them as Foster parents.

Aside from the fact your numbers were also overstated, you are saying Ann Romney was wrong when she said being a stay home mom was work? Taking care of 8 kids is not only 2 more than allowed by the state, it is a lot of work - especially since one was an infant and there were a lot of small kids in your example.

Assuming they qualify for SNAP, not all foster parents do qualify for SNAP. Two, SNAP was not included in the number used in the ad. And $300 of your SNAP number is totally not related to the foster children. So your number is overstated by $300 per month.

No, if you are doing this as your means of support you would add in for those two as well. I made that math clear.


Do they cut a check for healthcare and send it to the foster parents or do they give healthcare benefits to the foster parents? No they don't. So that $200/per child is bogus. They only reimburse healthcare providers for healthcare services rendered. So you have overstated reimbursement by at least $800 per month.

No, I specifically said, "has the value of", and $200 per month per kid for health care seems reasonable.


Safe link is not a feature that has anything to do with foster care. It is available to people based on income, and has nothing to do with the foster parent program.

And I said it wasn't funded by the state, and didn't include its value either.


Not if you use old fashioned math and logic.

I did.


No it doesn't, you were overstating reimbursements and assuming that all of the payments were pure profit and that the grandparents incurred zero costs for the kids and you are ignoring the fact that the ad specifically ruled out the expense reimbursements you threw in. If the grandparents refused to feed, house and cloth the kids, they would not be foster parents for long.

BS, I said that's what their income is.
OF COURSE they have to house, clothe and feed the kids with that income, that's obvious to anyone Joe.

And I also said: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

Aside from the fact your numbers were also overstated, you are saying Ann Romney was wrong when she said being a stay home mom was work? Taking care of 8 kids is not only 2 more than allowed by the state, it is a lot of work - especially since one was an infant and there were a lot of small kids in your example.

The state will allow more than 6 kids if they are related, Joe.

And I didn't say it wasn't a lot of work to deal with 8 kids.
Again, that's just stating the obvious.

Indeed I said:


a mother could do this, but would they?

I don't think many would.

Which is why I concluded: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

The state will allow more than 6 kids if they are related, Joe.

And I didn't say it wasn't a lot of work to deal with 8 kids.
Again, that's just stating the obvious.

You said 80k that is a lot of money for doing nothing. Taking care of 8 kids is not nothing. And you totally ignored the costs incurred. If the idea was to profit from foster care, they would be better of flipping burgers.



Indeed I said:

Which is why I concluded: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

I know what you said Arthur, but your numbers were grossly overstated. Profiting from foster care is a myth.

You said 80k that is a lot of money for doing nothing. Taking care of 8 kids is not nothing. And you totally ignored the costs incurred. If the idea was to profit from foster care, they would be better of flipping burgers.

No I didn't.

Context Joe: I said "without working", meaning AT A JOB.
Sheesh.
Because in the same sentence I mention RAISING the kids.
Most of us know there would be plenty of work involved in raising 8 kids.


I know what you said Arthur, but your numbers were grossly overstated. Profiting from foster care is a myth.

No they weren't grossly overstated, indeed, I found, by researching the payments, that they were nowhere near what the Email suggested and AFAIK, the figures were in fact accurate and I never mentioned anything to do with "profiting", that would be for unrelated children in a facility, and interestingly, the amounts given are less per child in that scenario.

No I didn't.

Context Joe: I said "without working", meaning AT A JOB.
Sheesh.
Because in the same sentence I mention RAISING the kids.
Most of us know there would be plenty of work involved in raising 8 kids.

No they weren't grossly overstated, indeed, I found, by researching the payments, that they were nowhere near what the Email suggested and AFAIK, the figures were in fact accurate and I never mentioned anything to do with "profiting", that would be for unrelated children in a facility, and interestingly, the amounts given are less per child in that scenario.

This is what you said Arthur. - Post 17 Complete Context.


Yes, because apparently one can make nearly 80k a year, without working, just by having kids in Illinois and having your Grandmother raise them as Foster parents.

What the email doesn't make clear, and I think this is true, is I don't think the Mother could legally live with her children to have them treated as Foster children.

And so yes, a mother could do this, but would they?

I don't think many would.

Which is why I said: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

Right, making 80k a year without working at a job earning "bread", because I indeed did mention the RAISING of the kids. Joe.

And as you know, that's where the work part of having 8 kids comes in.

Must I always state the obvious for you Joe?

Or did you forget that the OP was about having kids and putting them in Foster care as a means of being the "breadwinner"?

Right, making 80k a year without working at a job earning a salary, because I indeed did mention the RAISING of the kids. Joe.

And as you know, that's where the work part of having 8 kids comes in.

Must I always state the obvious for you Joe?

No, but you must be honest.

And I am Joe.

The fact that you misunderstood me doesn't make me dishonest.

And I am Joe.

The fact that you misunderstood me doesn't make me dishonest.

Unfortunately for you Arthur, I didn't misunderstand you.

Yeah Joe, you did.

And worse, Joe it's obvious that you do it on purpose.

Welfare Queens? What's so shocking about this? I know a family of 11 that are all on the dole in Australia. Each of those children are starting to have children and all aim to have as many as they can as this is what their religion tells them is the best possible moral outcome.

It's kind of funny if you stop and think about it.

I also know a chick in Sydney working the dole and her "boyfriend" wants more kids. She's like his little baby factory and he still gets to live in his apartment and have girl friends. She likes having his babies and lives a pretty good life on the dole. At least she isn't complaining. As he makes close to $100K a year, he gives her $100-200 a week added spending money to keep her happy and the public picks up the bill.

Single mothers with kids able to raise them. There's certainly nothing illegal about it and according to both Joe and Arthur it's perfectly moral. According to me it's immoral as it requires the use of force and fiat to pay for his kids. You can expect more of this as we move forward - much much much more. Society slowly becomes less prosperous, the Asguard's of the world scream KILL STEVE JOBS! and on we go down the toilet bowl.

No Michael, I made no moral judgements on it, what I did say though was I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

And I've yet to see any evidence it is a serious problem, hence no toilet bowl analogies are yet warranted.

Yeah Joe, you did.

And worse, Joe it's obvious that you do it on purpose.

No Arthur, this is you trying to cover your tail yet again. You grossly overstated the reimbursements and you said that the ad was almost correct. And clearly it was not. You said a family could get 80k a year for "no work". You were wrong yet again Arthur.

No Arthur, this is you trying to cover your tail yet again. You grossly overstated the reimbursements and you said that the ad was almost correct. And clearly it was not. You said a family could get 80k a year for "no work". You were wrong yet again Arthur.

No Joe, I said this family could get 80k per year.
I showed the figures and they are reasonably accurate.

They get that money from the government without anyone working at a job outside the home.

The care of the children will in fact be looked at by the DFCS people occasionally, so they do have to provide a reasonable level of care for these children to keep getting the money.

No Joe, I said this family could get 80k per year.
I showed the figures and they are reasonably accurate.

They get that money from the government without anyone working at a job outside the home.

The care of the children will in fact be looked at by the DFCS people occasionally, so they do have to provide a reasonable level of care for these children to keep getting the money.

No you didn't. You threw overstated by 30k dollars by throwing in items totally unrelated to the kids and the foster care program and by including non reimbursable items (e.g. Healthcare) into the expense reimbursements given to foster parents. And you went on to claim they could collect 80k with no work. Taking care of 8 kids including an infant and younger kids is not work.

Nope, the issue I dealt with was the total income to the family and the numbers are correct.

The Guardians of children under DFCS care (foster kids) get between $384 and $471 per child depending on age.

For 8 kids with 3>12, 2 >8, 1 >4, 1 >1 and 1 newborn, the state of Illinois would provide $3,468 per month.

They would also provide under the SNAP program, $1,502 (family of 10) for food stamps.

They would also provide free medical care, which at an average value of ~$200 per kid per month is $1,600

A free cell phone is available via SafeLink, but it's not directly funded by the State and thus the value is not included in this analysis.

That comes to a total of $6,560 per month, or $78,720 tax free income.

In this example, the 3 Children under 5 the mother if nursing, would also qualify for WIC benefits, which would amount to vouchers for these every food packages each month

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgallowances.HTM

I estimate that's worth about $2,000 more per year, pushing the total to $80,720 without anyone working at a salaried job.

The care of the children will in fact be looked at by the DFCS people occasionally, so they do have to provide a reasonable level of care for these children to keep getting the money.

Child Support Payments, SNAP payments and WIC payments are NOT counted as Taxable earnings, but the kids are dependents, and so if one of the Grandparents is working, they would get $37,000 worth of exemptions to their income and $8,000 in Child Tax Credits and if you add in the $11,600 standard deduction, so it would appear that they could earn an additional $56,000 and pay no income tax at all and still qualify for the SNAP program and WIC (automatic if you get SNAP or Medicaid).

Nope

The Guardians of children under DFCS care (foster kids) do get between $384 and $471 per child depending on age.

For 8 kids with 3>12, 2 >8, 1 >4, 1 >1 and 1 newborn, the state of Illinois would provide $3,468 per month.

They would also provide under the SNAP program, $1,502 (family of 10) for food stamps.

They would also provide free medical care, which at an average value of ~$200 per kid per month is $1,600

A free cell phone is available via SafeLink, but it's not directly funded by the State and thus the value is not included in this analysis.

That comes to a total of $6,560 per month, or $78,720 tax free income.

In this example, the 3 Children under 5 the mother if nursing, would also qualify for WIC benefits, which would amount to vouchers for these every food packages each month

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgallowances.HTM

I estimate that's worth about $2,000 more per year, pushing the total to $80,720 without anyone working at a salaried job.

The care of the children will in fact be looked at by the DFCS people occasionally, so they do have to provide a reasonable level of care for these children to keep getting the money.

Child Support Payments, SNAP payments and WIC payments are NOT counted as Taxable earnings, but the kids are dependents, and so if one of the Grandparents is working, they would get $37,000 worth of exemptions to their income and $8,000 in Child Tax Credits and if you add in the $11,600 standard deduction, so it would appear that they could earn an additional $56,000 and pay no income tax at all and still qualify for the SNAP program and WIC (automatic if you get SNAP or Medicaid).

Repeating your errors over and over is not going to make them true. Show me the check for $200 dollars per kid that goes to the foster parents. It doesn't exist. If the foster parents are elgible for SNAP they can get those benefits with or without foster kids. So their SNAP reimbursment should not be included in the foster care reimbursement ($300/month). You grossly overstated reimbursments.

Unfortunately for you Arthur, I didn't misunderstand you.


Yeah Joe, you did.

And worse, Joe it's obvious that you do it on purpose.

Agreed. Come off it. Even if you didn't understand, he already clarified what he meant. Stop obsessing over trivia and stay on the point. Otherwise you just look like you come here looking to cause fights. :rolleyes:

I said the VALUE of Joe.
If you don't have to pay for it, but it is a necessity, then it's the same as income Joe.

You want to say that's too much? That medical care for kids is only say ~$100 per month value?

Then the total is ~$71,000

I said the VALUE of Joe.
If you don't have to pay for it, but it is a necessity, then it's the same as income Joe.

You want to say that's too much? That medical care for kids is only say ~$100 per month value?

Then the total is ~$71,000

How does the foster parent benefit from a non existent medical reimbursement? They don't. Foster parents do not get compensated for foster child medical expenses. Medical providers do. Therefore there is no "value" to the foster parents for medical reimbursements. So you just pulled a number out of the aether and represented it as part of the foster parent reimbursement. It is not. And that is just one of your over statments for cost reimbursement for "No Work" raising 8 kids. You and the ad act as if there are no costs for raising these kids. What is the food bill for 8 kids for a year? What is the clothing bill for 8 kids for a year?

The whole point of the ad was to convey the false image that foster parents were profiteering from foster care - for sitting on their derrières. And that is clearly not the case.

No Joe, I'm not trying to convey any such thing.

Indeed I specifically said that not many mothers would do this, that this is not a serious problem.

Just the OPPOSITE of what you are claiming Joe.

I just tried to figure out what the actual numbers were to compare it to that email.

I have not tried to figure out what it would actually cost to raise 8 kids.

As to the Medical costs, if you don't have to pay for it, but it is a necessity, then it's essentially the same as income.

It's like the WIC program, you get the vouchers for the food, not money, but for a simple analysis, it is the same as money.

Now if you want to break it down:

The family would get:

$41,616 in Cash to be used for Rent, Transportation, Utilities etc

And

$20,024 in Food Stamps, WIC vouchers, which can only be used for food (and the $2,000 a year in WIC is very limited).

and

$9,600 in Medical care (@ $100 per month per child)

No Joe, I'm not trying to convey any such thing.

Indeed I specifically said that not many mothers would do this, that this is not a serious problem.

Just the OPPOSITE of what you are claiming Joe.

I just tried to figure out what the actual numbers were to compare it to that email.

I have not tried to figure out what it would actually cost to raise 8 kids.

Unfortunately for you Arthur, your words speak for themselves.



As to the Medical costs, if you don't have to pay for it, but it is a necessity, then it's essentially the same as income.

Does the state cut a check to the foster parent for foster care medical expense? No. It does not. So it is wrong to say the foster parent receives cash for the expense. Two, you just pulled a number out of the aether and credited it to foster parent compensation.



It's like the WIC program, you get the vouchers for the food, not money, but for a simple analysis, it is the same as money.

No it is not like WIC, which is limited to begin with, WIC has a identifiable dollar value.



Now if you want to break it down:

The family would get:

$41,616 in Cash to be used for Rent, Transportation, Utilities etc

And

$20,024 in Food Stamps, WIC vouchers, which can only be used for food (and the $2,000 a year in WIC is very limited).

and

$9,600 in Medical care (@ $100 per month per child)

Your foods stamps (SNAP) numbers are still overstated (1200 per month does not equal 20,024 per year. Two you continue to include non foster care related reimbursements in food stamp (SNAP). And you continue claim items that are not reimbursed to the foster parent into foster parent compensation (medical care) and you just pull a number out of the air for medical care.

Unfortunately for you Arthur, your words speak for themselves.

Yes they do, and saying not many mothers would do this and that it's not a serious problem is certainly not supporting your BS claim.


Does the state cut a check to the foster parent for foster care medical expense? No. It does not. So it is wrong to say the foster parent receives cash for the expense. Two, you just pulled a number out of the aether and credited it to foster parent compensation.

And so I broke it out as Cash and Food Stamps, WIC and Medical care.

The FAMILY would get:


$41,616 in Cash to be used for Rent, Transportation, Utilities etc

And

$20,024 in Food Stamps, WIC vouchers, which can only be used for food (and the $2,000 a year in WIC is very limited).

and

$9,600 in Medical care (@ $100 per month per child)

So one can see what money they have that is discretionary.


No it is not like WIC, which is limited to begin with, WIC has a identifiable dollar value.

Right, so and Medical Care has a dollar value.
No, I don't know exactly what it is, but my numbers are reasonable.


Your foods stamps (SNAP) numbers are still overstated (1200 per month does not equal 20,024 per year.

Because Food Stamps are based on the family size, so there are presumed to be two adults iin the household as well.


Two you continue to include non foster care related reimbursements in food stamp (SNAP). And you continue claim items that are not reimbursed to the foster parent into foster parent compensation (medical care) and you just pull a number out of the air for medical care.

Nope, I've broken the numbers out and I've always stated it as what the Family gets.

What would YOU think is a fair figure for average Medical costs for 8 children over 18 years each?

Remember that with 8 kids you are likely to have at least one kid per year with something expensive go wrong and every few years one of them will likely have something that has to be treated that is really expensive.

What's funny is you've always said that our Medical Care is SO EXPENSIVE, now you seem to be saying it's dirt cheap.

Yes they do, and saying not many mothers would do this and that it's not a serious problem is certainly not supporting your BS claim.

Good. but that has never been the issue in this thread. That is you throwing up chaff to cover your errors.



And so I broke it out as Cash and Food Stamps, WIC and Medical care.

That again has never been the issue. The issues are you making stuff up, pulling numbers out of the aether and including non foster care related reimbursements and items not in the original ad into your numbers so that you could claim the original 150k per year was close. When in reality, it was no where near close.



The FAMILY would get:

So one can see what money they have that is discretionary.

Right, so and Medical Care has a dollar value.
No, I don't know exactly what it is, but my numbers are reasonable.

It doesn't have a dollar figure because no checks are delivered to foster parents for the healthcare of their foster children. In other words they are not getting reimbursed for the expense as you have claimed.



Because Food Stamps are based on the family size, so there are presumed to be two adults iin the household as well.

That is some pretty whacky logic. You are stretching credulity again Arthur. Food stamps for the foster parents is independent of and unrelated to food expense compensation for the foster children.



Nope, I've broken the numbers out and I've always stated it as what the Family gets.

What would YOU think is a fair figure for average Medical costs for 8 children over 18 years each?

Remember that with 8 kids you are likely to have at least one kid per year with something expensive go wrong and every few years one of them will likely have something that has to be treated that is really expensive.

What's funny is you've always said that our Medical Care is SO EXPENSIVE, now you seem to be saying it's dirt cheap.

I think a fair figure is to only include expenses that are reimbursed to the foster parent if you are claiming that foster parents are being reimbursed for those expenses which you and the ad are doing.

Additionally the issue of our expensive and increasingly ineffective healthcare system is another unrelated issue. This is you again throwing up chaff in attempt to divert attention and discussion of your errors.

Good. but that has never been the issue in this thread. That is you throwing up chaff to cover your errors.

Sure it is.
Indeed the email says:

now we are hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who
will continue to keep them on the dole

So I DIRECTLY refuted the ad by saying: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

And I explicitly said: a mother could do this, but would they? I don't think many would.

So YES Joe, that was indeed an ISSUE in this thread.



That again has never been the issue. The issues are you making stuff up, pulling numbers out of the aether and including non foster care related reimbursements and items not in the original ad into your numbers so that you could claim the original 150k per year was close. When in reality, it was no where near close.

BS, I'm at less then HALF of that $150K in TOTAL, and that's adding in the things that the email claimed were available, but were not part of the $150K,


Not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid), plus a
monthly card entitling them to free groceries
and a voucher for 250 free Obamaphone minutes
each month. This does not include WIC and other
welfare benefits...that they are "entitled" to.

So no Joe, I'm not saying that the email is anywhere near close.



It doesn't have a dollar figure because no checks are delivered to foster parents for the healthcare of their foster children. In other words they are not getting reimbursed for the expense as you have claimed.

Semantics Joe.
If you had to Pay $100 per month for Health care and were then REIMBURSED, your cost would be $0.
If the healthcare providers are paid directly the $100 per month, your cost is exactly the same.
For a NECESSITY, the method of payment isn't important.


That is some pretty whacky logic. You are stretching credulity again Arthur. Food stamps for the foster parents is independent of and unrelated to food expense compensation for the foster children.

BS, the whole idea is that the Grandparents take care of the kids and thus don't have a job, but they do have dependents so they do qualify for SNAP.


I think a fair figure is to only include expenses that are reimbursed to the foster parent if you are claiming that foster parents are being reimbursed for those expenses which you and the ad are doing.

No Joe, the email also mentions Food Stamps, WIC, Cell Phones as well.

And I've broken down what they receive in cash, $41k, which is what you would use to compare to the $150K in the email.


Additionally the issue of our expensive and increasingly ineffective healthcare system is another unrelated issue. This is you again throwing up chaff in attempt to divert attention and discussion of your errors.

No it's not.

YOU challenged my $200 per month for medical care and are saying our medical care isn't that expensive.

Now you seem to be challenging the $100 month I cut it to.

So I guess it's only expensive when that's the point you are arguing?

Sure it is.
Indeed the email says:

now we are hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who
will continue to keep them on the dole

So I DIRECTLY refuted the ad by saying: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

And I explicitly said: a mother could do this, but would they? I don't think many would.

So YES Joe, that was indeed an ISSUE in this thread.

No one is contesting this issue. This is you throwing up chaff as you always do to divert attention from your errors/deceptions.



BS, I'm at less then HALF of that $150K in TOTAL, and that's adding in the things that the email claimed were available, but were not part of the $150K,

And the ad excluded those items from the 150k in the ad. Before you revised your numbers when you said, "As to the veracity of the numbers, thankfully they are wrong.

But not that wrong:", you were at more than half of the 150k in the ad.



So no Joe, I'm not saying that the email is anywhere near close.

I just quoted what you said in post #12.



Semantics Joe.
If you had to Pay $100 per month for Health care and were then REIMBURSED, your cost would be $0.
If the healthcare providers are paid directly the $100 per month, your cost is exactly the same.
For a NECESSITY, the method of payment isn't important.

No it is more than semantics. The discussion was about reimbusable expenses to the foster parents. And you are including non reimbursable expenses. Foster parents incurr no liability for the medical expenses of foster children and therefore are not reimbursed for those expenses. Yet you want to mix them to gin up a number. If foster parents received reimbursements for healtcare, then it would be appropriate to add that number into a discussion of foster parent reimbursable expense. But that is very clearly not the case.



BS, the whole idea is that the Grandparents take care of the kids and thus don't have a job, but they do have dependents so they do qualify for SNAP.

Again, not the issue. Foster parents may or may not qualify for foodstamps. Your assumption is they do. But even if they do qualify, their qualification is independent of the foster parent program.



No Joe, the email also mentions Food Stamps, WIC, Cell Phones as well.

Yes it does mention other benefits, but it does not include those in the 150k as you did. Addtionally as previously pointed out to you, some of those benefits are independent (i.e. not related) of the foster care program.



And I've broken down what they receive in cash, $41k, which is what you would use to compare to the $150K in the email.

It is good to see your number come down to reality, finally! That is down by about half what you had originally posted. And not anywhere near 150k.



YOU challenged my $200 per month for medical care and are saying our medical care isn't that expensive.

No this is you making stuff up again Arthur. I challenge you to prove this claim! This is the argument you want to have. I have repeatedly explained my issue with your inclusion of non reimbursable expenses in the discussion of reimbursements.



Now you seem to be challenging the $100 month I cut it to.

Again, this is you making stuff up again Arthur.



So I guess it's only expensive when that's the point you are arguing?

I guess you didn't read my many posts on this issue. Our expensive healthcare system is not germane to this discussion. Adding non reimbursables to a discussion of reimbursables is simply not honest.

It is good to see your number come down to reality, finally! That is down by about half what you had originally posted. And not anywhere near 150k.


No except for the reducing the estimate of the monthly medical cost to $100 per month from $200, the number has not come down Joe.

This part of the value received is JUST the Cash portion of the transaction, but the total value remains the same as before.

And I always stated what the sum was made of, Cash + SNAP + WIC + Medicaid, and most of us are smart enough to know which are cash and which are not.

Your continued dishonesty on this issue and bickering about semantics is why, once again, welcome back to Ignore Joe

No except for the reducing the estimate of the monthly medical cost to $100 per month from $200, the number has not come down Joe.

This part of the value received is JUST the Cash portion of the transaction, but the total value remains the same as before.

And I always stated what the sum was made of, Cash + SNAP + WIC + Medicaid, and most of us are smart enough to know which are cash and which are not.

Your continued dishonesty on this issue and bickering about semantics is why, once again, welcome back to Ignore Joe

You are lying again Arthur. You orginally claimed over 80k now you are down to 40k. Now you are trying to obfuscate with a silly cash versus non cash discussion. There is no non cash reimbursable from the state for foster care expenses. :)

No Michael, I made no moral judgements on it, what I did say though was I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

And I've yet to see any evidence it is a serious problem, hence no toilet bowl analogies are yet warranted.No, you've made it clear you support income tax, which involves force, which is immoral. Now that that same BIG immoral government you wanted, uses it's ill gotten gains to prop up welfare queens you complain?

Why?

Just last week you ranted and raved against me on income tax. I mean, what? Do you think maybe paying single mothers has, oh I don't know, led to fathers feeling they're now off the hook and society with MANY more times single mothers? And that some, not all but some, mothers see baby making as a moral way to get paid a little money?

This society is a turd circling the bowl and you're so happy because you're not doggy-paddling in bowel-soup but holding onto a turd life-preserver. Houses are not supposed to double and then double again in price to be sold off to some schmuck trying to flip a home - as you go and buy a boat. That's not the way a moral society operates. I'm not suggesting you did anything immoral, you bought a house, raised your children, sold your house. BUT, that hosing bubble you made out well on will bury your grandchildren long after the neighborhood you now live in turns from historic to hood and your boat is long sold or forgotten. You're grandkids will have to live with the immorality you choose to support (income tax and the federal reserve system) that is with us here and now.

So, maybe you should be happy you have your beloved Welfare Queen? She's just a part of a bigger system of immorality trying to make due in a society slowly destroying itself. A society where the Steve Jobs play the part of the "villain" and must be killed while the Welfare Queens are the damsels in distress the Hero's really Zero's.

And if you dare suggest one iota of welfare is immoral and destructive towards society - expect the Joe's and Asguard's to stick a knife your back as they "redistribute" rooms in your historic home to Welfare Queens for the better of society. Just as income tax and the federal reserve has taught them is moral and just.

I'm not joking, we've only just ploughed into the iceberg, it's going to take decades to fully tank this big boy. But don't you worry - she's sinking........