Messages By: nscrchick

That maybe how it works where you are....and that (collection of child support) is a state agency issue.  But that is NOT necessarily how it works in other states. My child support was collected for 6 years through the state and they issued me the check after they processed it. And they took care of all the legal expense to collect it.

I was not on welfare or food stamps...but my kids did qualify for medicaid during part of that time and it didn't affect my child support. I got exactly what the  court ordered for his child support AND the medicaid. The boys received medicaid because their father didn't supply them insurance.

If you are getting income, then yes it is going to offset it. I said that. I said if your income is higher then you would get less welfare. As income goes up welfare goes down. Whether that income is from child support or from a job.

Tell me were you getting child support before you went on welfare?  Because if you let the state go after the child support for you then you signed away the rights to receive it directly from the father. You assigned the rights to that support to the agency collecting it.

Sure they offset the welfare, why shouldn't they? You do realize that far less actually get child support than do right? Welfare is based on income contingency, so those not getting child support are still eligible for welfare. Taxpayers pay for the program. Child support payments offset very little of it if any...last time I looked (and it has been a few years) child support payments collected through the government were not even covering the legal expense of award and garnishments.

So are you saying that they collected for instance $200 and you got only exactly $200 in money and food stamps total?

Ami

Hi J.

After enjoying the beauty of nature yesterday, my blood is back to boiling.  We won't need Jane Fonda.  Hell, all she did was go to Hanoi...explained it away very well...or she tried...but Jane didn't bomb anything to protest Viet Nam.....look at the bebefits of having Obama as President...we have direct access to Bill Ayers...although he DENIED IT..Obama was politically introduced in Ayers' living room, in the 1990's...not 8 years old then...so why "settle" when you can have a non-repentiant  WEATHERMAN to meet and great the troops...a man who helped to launch the political career of our "seems to be next" President!

I was doing some reading last night on the weathermen, and also on Reverend Jerimiah Wright. One is racist, one is a criminal who got over.  Both are closely linked to a man ahead in the polls to be our next President.

This has nothing to do with Republican or Democratic ideology...that is the core of our freedom...to have differences of opinion, and I respect BOTH parties right to stand firm to their beliefs...I always end up somewhere in the middle...cannot go far right or left.

I can denounce racism, and renounce anyone who would embrace a racist as a pastor.  You feel that way?  FINE!  Do not run for President. 

I denounce violent felons, and ANYONE who sells out and enters the home of an admitted violent FELON...worse...one who beat the system...I have NO RESPECT for that man or woman...none.  So Obama does it, has the nerve to run for President, beats out Hillary in the Primarys...unbelievable...and he now leads McCain.

There was such a hooha on this board over that "drink" that I won't dare to mention, fearing it be racist.  Yet, Jerimiah Wright is NOT a racist?...we must understand....

If Obama does win, and he may very well do just that...on the principles held within myself, I refuse to fly an American Flag until his term(s) are over.

McCain will not attack Wright.  Shows he is a gentleman, but Hillary sure did...Palin would, so maybe it's the estrogen thing...I don't know...years of working toward racial harmony, and one of Wright's parishoners could be our Commander-in-Chief! 

Hearing every politicain blabbling about the "war on crime" bi-partisan...we have this war on crime.  So, we are going to elect a PRESIDENT who sees Ayers acts as so "despicable" he launched his political career in that man's home. 

We hung Clinton out to dry because he "lied" under oath, about something non-criminal, non-political, and the question should not have been asked in the first place.  Obama says on national T.V. that his being in Ayers' living room was NOT true...said it to McCain in the debate...yet immediately after, it was reported as one of the "untruths" of the debate.  So, Obama lied.  The technicality being, he wasn't under oath...like Ayers beat prison time on a legal "technicality".

I cannot vote for a person that I don't respect.  I don't fully agree with either candidate on EVERYTHING...but McCain has character, he has integrity, he doesn't have a history of worshipping with a racist pastor, nor has he any political affiliaitons with a felon...a felon in a high position at a university, simply because he got over.

I respect the fact that Obama supporters have been able to look past his history, are not effected by his lack of experience, or are not wondering...:who is this man, really?"

I cannot.  Different political opions, I do respect...but character, to me, is a high priority for our President. 

Some of the most brilliant minds do not have the moral fiber to be in the top position.  In my opionion, Obama is sadly, idicative of such.

K.

My S/O was listening the radio and they went to, I want to say inner city Philly,  but please dont quote me on that and they ask random people who they were voting for and they all said Obama.

The person then gave these people McCain's plan on what he wanted to do if he won and they all agreed that would be the best thing for the country.

The person then asked them what they thought of Obama's running mate, Palin, and do you think she will do a good job as VP.  They all said that she will do a wonderful job and so happy that Obama picked her.

Hi J.

It's freezing in N.Y, today...hope it warms up for the Halloween visiters...I have soooo much candy, and we don't eat it...those little goblins had better dress warm and come to my house!

Oh could I go on a rant about the home ownership.  Even with working people, some cannot afford a home.  It sounds great...you pay rent, so why not own something for that money and build equity?  Anybody ever figure in property tax, home owners' insurance, and maintainance?  Yesterday my one boiler crapped out in Buffalo...so I called the Heating/plumbing company, he replaced the entire unit to the tune of $1,900.My tenant has heat...she pays rent...but admits she could not afford the extras that come with home ownership.

Do people not think?  The banks...oh they really did a bang up job...

Unless you can buy a house that promises to never need repair, you get a waiver on your property tax, refuse tax, garbage pick up fees, and a WARRENTY from God you'll never need to insure that home, renting is less expensive.  It's also a lot less stressful.

No shame in renting, and owning your own home is not the "walk in the park" it is cracked up to be.  It is  a lot of WORK, and you pay a lot of "hidden costs".

How cruel is it to convince a person they CAN own a home, only to take it away in a foreclosure?  People often believe what they want to hear...common sense flies out the window. 

They really did us ALL a big favor...and why?  Immoral greed, and high hopes on the naive buyers.

Welfare recipients should not own houses...for those in need, I don't mind paying my share of tax to help with rent.  I am NOT willing to pay for the expenses of home ownership, other than my own.

Someone needs food?  I'll buy it, just not filet mignon, and Dom Perignon.  Chicken, pasta and juice...other necessities.

Big differences in NEDDS and WANTS...I want the Penthouse in Trump Tower...it's never going to happen.

K.

I feel the same way when someone accuses me of wanting to take their hard earned money and give it to welfare people who don't want to work.

For the record, I don't think everyone who didn't vote Obama is racist...I would have defended you if I had been there. I don't even know you well enough to know your views on race, but that kind of attitude contradicts the profoundness of the history of this election. It disrespects the fact that we didn't elect a black man...we elected a candidate who happened to be black.

Why do you feel it is a teachers place to talk about this at all, especially to kindergartners?

Why do you feel that this should be discussed at all at such a young age?  My gosh teachers can not even hug students anymore if they are hurt, but yet you want to start talking about something like this?

When I was that age I learned how to count, read, played outside, not had a discussion about the different types of relationships there are.

As I did say, If brothers and sisters want to be intimate, they'll do it...just cannot see the marriage laws giving legal sanction to that.

The parents...mom is mom, but she is Dad's SISTER...so she'd be "auntie" Mom?  Dad is Mom's brother, so he'd be "uncle" Dad...I see more than just a pre-disposition to risky genes here.  I see very dangerous psycological ramifications to the children, that may be far greater than the obvious health risks.

In the other cases you brought up, the people do have the same handicaps, but carry different genes, as they are not related.  Their risks would be greater than average, but why are children with mental retardation born to people with no family history? 

The same gene pool has, in my opinion, just the strongest possibilities...it may NOT happen, but the emotional damage...I put the odds of that happening being better than 90%