I have such a hard time understanding what republicans stand for.
The summary misleads the reader in a critical way - Caswell doesn't want to ban foster kids or their foster parents from shopping wherever the hell they want; He wants to give them state money, in the form of gift certificates to thrift stores.
If a foster family can afford designer threads, they can still hop over to Italy once a month and pick up the latest Versace has to offer.
And for the realistic middle-ground, they can at least use the allowance to get their "staple" clothing for a pittance, then perhaps have a bit more to spend on other things they really want.
I also don't get the "insulting" part of this - Hey, when you can get decent jeans for $2 vs $20+, why the hell not? I dare say that many people in this discussion (myself included!) have most likely shopped at second-hand stores; so why would I consider it demeaning to encourage others do something that I myself do to save money?
And second, you can get new underwear and socks for under a buck each.
Strangely, though, it almost sounds like we've reversed our normal sides here - You see this as a business arrangement, and I see it as a "family-lite" scenario. Interesting...
About 160,000 kids wouldn't receive their back-to-school clothing allowance under the Department of Human Services (DHS) budget passed by a House subcommittee. That saves $9.9 million (which will go a long way to pay for the $1.2 billion tax break we're handing businesses).
And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.
pla: if someone can't afford socks and underwear, they probably shouldn't take in foster kids.
pla: Wait... So you'd rather see kids placed with people who can't afford them, because somehow "love" will magically make the fact that they need to eat dog-food to survive okay?
« Older Gearbox Software helps a fan with a modest proposa... | Victoria Looseleaf's mesmerizi... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt