I've got a bridge to sell you...

[LexxiXhan]

25 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I can go back to avocadoes.   Should there be a means test to get an avocado?

Yes. They squeeze our curvy bits for ripeness and and then stamp them with "this one needs an avocao", or not.

I don't know how they deliver the avocados. Yet.

Edited January 29, 2020 by LexxiXhan

[Luna Bliss]

Well, actually, I think income should be the determining factor for who gets assistance, and not the fact that perhaps someone was frugal and managed to save some money.  They may have denied themselves a lot to save that 10k.

But more to the point...why all these tests to pick apart minor categories. I mean, a waitress gets a tip and suddenly she's disqualified for child care or food assistance??  This happens.

I witnessed a child getting pulled out of the daycare that would have given him a better start, and a woman jerked out of needed therapy when new rules came into existence due to a new administration in the white house.

Much simpler just to have a policy of helping those in need!  Like Europe.  With minor supervision to make sure the one earning 100k per year isn't taking advantage of it.

@ Tari Landar

how do u do that?

Edited January 29, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Lindal Kidd]

This quote from Luna...

"... Brain development doesn't mature until around age 25 (and you KNOW I was referring to GIRLS because I used that word). 
Until brains are fully developed such abilities as decision making, impulse control, logical & organized thinking, & risk management do not work as well...

...reminded me of a short piece I read recently about how confused our policy-making logic is about when a person is, or is not, an adult (The piece was "Let Them Smoke" in National Review).

The author points out that we consider a person adult enough to drive a car (a deadly weapon!) at 16.  We consider them adult enough to vote, drink beer and wine, and to fight and die for their country at 18.  We consider them adult enough to buy tobacco or other nicotine products, and hard liquor, at 21.  There are bills under consideration to raise the age to buy a firearm to 21 or more.  And yet they are still enough of a minor to be on their parents' medical insurance until 26.  The article did not add, but I will, that rental car companies don't think you're adult enough to rent their cars until 26 or 27.

This is illogical.  If a person is mature enough to exercise the sovereign franchise at 18 (and some are advocating for 16!) then they should be considered an "adult" and capable of mature judgment for ALL purposes.  If they are not mature enough to make life choices about their own bodies like smoking and drinking until 21 (or 25, according to Luna), then they should be treated as a minor child for ALL purposes until they are that age.

My personal view is that 18 is a right and proper age of adulthood, but that may be due to cultural bias and the many sensible young adults of my acqaintance.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Lindal Kidd

[Tolya Ugajin]

29 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

It has been in place since before I was even born actually, in one form or another. The main qualification is that the parent(both, if present, not simply one if both are present unless there is some medical reason that makes one parent incapable of caring for the child(ren)) must be working and/or attending a higher education at least 20 hours a week. 

The funding tends to come, primarily,  to the states in the form of Federal Child Care and Development Block grants, but is also funded by other federal funding collected in the form of taxes, etc..

The money is paid directly to the carer of the child(ren), so that it is used for that purpose and ONLY that purpose. 

It's actually a really good program, and a lot more people use it than people think. 

Wow, learn something new every day!  Come to think of it, now I remember something about a friend a few years back getting some sort of subsidized day care while in college as a single mom.  I figured it was from the university.  Sounds like a reasonable investment of tax dollars. 

[Tolya Ugajin]

7 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

This quote from Luna...

"... Brain development doesn't mature until around age 25 (and you KNOW I was referring to GIRLS because I used that word). 
Until brains are fully developed such abilities as decision making, impulse control, logical & organized thinking, & risk management do not work as well...

...reminded me of a short piece I read recently about how confused our policy-making logic is about when a person is, or is not, an adult (The piece was "Let Them Smoke" in National Review).

The author points out that we consider a person adult enough to drive a car (a deadly weapon!) at 16.  We consider them adult enough to vote, drink beer and wine, and to fight and die for their country at 18.  We consider them adult enough to buy tobacco or other nicotine products, and hard liquor, at 21.  There are bills under consideration to raise the age to buy a firearm to 21 or more.  And yet they are still enough of a minor to be on their parents' medical insurance until 26.  The article did not add, but I will, that rental car companies don't think you're adult enough to rent their cars until 26 or 27.

This is illogical.  If a person is mature enough to exercise the sovereign franchise at 18 (and some are advocating for 16!) then they should be considered an "adult" and capable of mature judgment for ALL purposes.  If they are not mature enough to make life choices about their own bodies like smoking and drinking until 21 (or 25, according to Luna), then they should be treated as a minor child for ALL purposes until they are that age.

My personal view is that 18 is a right and proper age of adulthood, but that may be due to cultural bias and the many sensible young adults of my acqaintance.

I once read an article in the Onion (so, yes, it was satire) that was actually about the abortion debate, but could easily be applied to adulthood.  Can't find it online, this was back when I was in college (Early 90's).  It basically went like this. 

Life doesn't begin at conception.

Life doesn't begin at birth.

Life doesn't begin at 18.

Life begins at $40K/yr.  Until then, you're just a clump of cells.

(runs away laughing maniacally waiting for THAT hand grenade go off)

[Solar Legion]

3 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

Yeah but... this one has kinda earned it.

What bugs me is how often I see, on the internet in general... someone post IBTL as basically an opinion on the actual topic before anything's gone on...

 

This thread...

I was hoping for a thread about sharing wonderful pics of Sl houses, and maybe a few jokes about avocados...

W

 

T

 

F

 

happened

 

Someone decided to bring politics into the thread. This is the result and why such should not be allowed - a special section should be made for it or it should be taken elsewhere.

2 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

This quote from Luna...

"... Brain development doesn't mature until around age 25 (and you KNOW I was referring to GIRLS because I used that word). 
Until brains are fully developed such abilities as decision making, impulse control, logical & organized thinking, & risk management do not work as well...

...reminded me of a short piece I read recently about how confused our policy-making logic is about when a person is, or is not, an adult (The piece was "Let Them Smoke" in National Review).

The author points out that we consider a person adult enough to drive a car (a deadly weapon!) at 16.  We consider them adult enough to vote, drink beer and wine, and to fight and die for their country at 18.  We consider them adult enough to buy tobacco or other nicotine products, and hard liquor, at 21.  There are bills under consideration to raise the age to buy a firearm to 21 or more.  And yet they are still enough of a minor to be on their parents' medical insurance until 26.  The article did not add, but I will, that rental car companies don't think you're adult enough to rent their cars until 26 or 27.

This is illogical.  If a person is mature enough to exercise the sovereign franchise at 18 (and some are advocating for 16!) then they should be considered an "adult" and capable of mature judgment for ALL purposes.  If they are not mature enough to make life choices about their own bodies like smoking and drinking until 21 (or 25, according to Luna), then they should be treated as a minor child for ALL purposes until they are that age.

My personal view is that 18 is a right and proper age of adulthood, but that may be due to cultural bias and the many sensible young adults of my acqaintance.

Humans tend to mature at different rates and no legislation can be written to accommodate this - you will always have outliers in either direction that will skew the data or otherwise be treated as edge cases.

And with that second response, my Off Topic contribution to this thread both begins and ends.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Solar Legion

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

This quote from Luna...

"... Brain development doesn't mature until around age 25 (and you KNOW I was referring to GIRLS because I used that word). 
Until brains are fully developed such abilities as decision making, impulse control, logical & organized thinking, & risk management do not work as well...

...reminded me of a short piece I read recently about how confused our policy-making logic is about when a person is, or is not, an adult (The piece was "Let Them Smoke" in National Review).

The author points out that we consider a person adult enough to drive a car (a deadly weapon!) at 16.  We consider them adult enough to vote, drink beer and wine, and to fight and die for their country at 18.  We consider them adult enough to buy tobacco or other nicotine products, and hard liquor, at 21.  There are bills under consideration to raise the age to buy a firearm to 21 or more.  And yet they are still enough of a minor to be on their parents' medical insurance until 26.  The article did not add, but I will, that rental car companies don't think you're adult enough to rent their cars until 26 or 27.

This is illogical.  If a person is mature enough to exercise the sovereign franchise at 18 (and some are advocating for 16!) then they should be considered an "adult" and capable of mature judgment for ALL purposes.  If they are not mature enough to make life choices about their own bodies like smoking and drinking until 21 (or 25, according to Luna), then they should be treated as a minor child for ALL purposes until they are that age.

My personal view is that 18 is a right and proper age of adulthood, but that may be due to cultural bias and the many sensible young adults of my acqaintance.

What's illogical about it, Lindal?

I didn't read the National Review article you quoted, but I suspect it ignores the complexity of the issue, in the fashion of George Carlin. It's amusing, but you don't learn anything. It's not that policies are illogical, it's that they serve different constituencies and address different factors, often economic.

Driving at 16 (The cars = deadly weapons claim is disingenuous. Cars are not designed to injure or kill people, handguns are.) descends from economic considerations, primarily in rural areas where the success of farm families often depended on the contributions of children. My mother got her driver's license when she was 14. That's no longer possible in Wisconsin and some states are investigating raising the driving age to 18. There is less pushback against this now, as fewer young people are seeking drivers licenses, small farms are in decline, and NHTSA, insurance companies, and other bodies are compiling ever larger mounds of data suggesting there's an economic cost of driving while young.

Drinking and smoking at 21? Tobacco age laws started appearing in the late 1800's and were eventually rolled back after intense lobbying by the tobacco industry. We had an even bigger tussle over alcohol. Wisconsin's Tavern League has long fought to get Wisconsin (the binge drinking capitol of the US) to lower the drinking age from 21 to 19. The loss of Federal tax support stymies their efforts. They also condemned anti-binge drinking efforts. Absent any lobbying by industry, where would the minimum age be? 26? It's not a matter of maturity, it's a matter of... economics.

Family health insurance coverage of children until age 26 reflects the increasing age at which children leave home (there was a spike in age after the Great Recession and we've never recovered). Financial and housing independence are not issues of maturity so much as of... economics.

Rental car age limits of 26/7 derive from actuarial assessment of both accident and credit risk. Actuarial based age limits actually correlate more closely to brain development metrics Luna mentioned than limits driven by other factors. If you want to see policy that derives from analysis, look to insurance companies, who keep a close eye on the... economics.

Minimum military recruitment age of 18? Sure. Every year you delay recruitment above that age, the harder it is to attract people and the more you must pay them. There's also a component of malleability that makes young minds more attractive for low level soldiering. Even so, the low age of entry for military service is largely a matter of... economics.

This all makes sense to me.

I also have personal experience with a 25 year old male who's barely sensible and may never attain certain aspects of what  is classically defined as "maturity".

Edited January 30, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters

[Tari Landar]

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well, actually, I think income should be the determining factor for who gets assistance, and not the fact that perhaps someone was frugal and managed to save some money.  They may have denied themselves a lot to save that 10k.

Yes, they probably very well did deny themselves something in order to save that $10k. I'm not about to guess what, because that too varies as greatly as humans. Maybe they denied themselves simple pleasures they realized they didn't need, maybe other more important things..I don't know, and I don't think anyone but them can say for certain.  I'm not convinced playing the guessing game on that part is a good idea, because..not universal and it would be very difficult to make it so. How are you gonna prove that person is telling the truth or lying? That's really just rhetorical, I prefer to take the most folks are as truthful as they can be route on such. I can see how agencies don't want to make that assessment, though, too many variables. 

That said, income DOES play a factor, the absolute biggest factor, and it is compared against assets (like something many who struggle would consider a pretty darn cushy savings) and necessary expenses (utilities, rent/mortgage, health insurance, child care expenses, school expenses for adult students, in some instances necessary ongoing healthcare that would otherwise not be covered by another source too). Those things are all considered, even when the system sucks, they're taken into account. 

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

But more to the point...why all these tests to pick apart minor categories. I mean, a waitress gets a tip and suddenly she's disqualified for child care or food assistance??  This happens.

I know it happens, even worse things happen, it's awful, and it sucks, You will never see me diminish those things, those awful circumstances that can keep a family just this side of not qualifying, when all it takes is one bad thing to go wrong.... Like I said, I make, roughly, $10 too much a month to get healthcare for myself, I don't qualify for any actually, even many providers that all have preexisting condition clauses (and I don't know of an insurance company out there, that doesn't...used to be a few). I do get it, on more levels than I wish I did.

There really aren't as many tests (I'm not quite sure what you mean by that part, I might need clarification) to determine eligibility as you might think. That doesn't mean they always get it right, that it always seems (or is) fair, or that people will always get the assistance they need and deserve.  don't support the belief that humans don't deserve certain things I, quite strongly, believe should be rights...I'm not the constitution, nor government, though...so I do what I can to help invoke change, and it starts with the people that need assistance, and trickles up, unfortunately (I believe it should go the other way, but it doesn't). 

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Much simpler just to have a policy of helping those in need! 

If it were actually simpler, for us in the US, it would be so. The fact that its NOT that simple and NOT that cut and dry, is why we don't have some of the things others do. The main problem, is cost, and how we come up with that in order to help as many as possible. That's the part no one can seem to figure out, and it's why we have the assistance and programs we do now, because it's as close a compromise as we've ever had.  The system is broken, most people know it's broken...but it IS a system, it does have a purpose, and even through those cracks, it does still work on some levels. Comparing us to other countries, is something I find a bit unfair. Part of the reason some countries have what they do, is because far more of their people actually NEED it to survive (which shows a failure on those nations' parts to realize how better to prevent the need before it exists, the same failure WE have). There are things I wish we had too, lots of things, lots of programs, lots of assistance....I'm just not the person to ask how we get those, mostly because I know, it's not an easy answer except in theory alone. We haven't found a system that works 100% of the time, anywhere in the world, that's not a fault of the US, but ...well, our species as a whole. Why haven't we yet figured out how to accommodate the basic needs of life for all? I have no clue, but no one else seems to either, so I don't feel nearly as bad that I don't know the answer.

Until we do have it, though....we work with what we've got, and we work towards better. We may be running a snail's pace through frozen molasses, but we are moving, and for that I'm grateful. Just as I am grateful for every bit of assistance we do offer, of which there is a tremendous amount that I am not willing to denounce or denigrate. We do help people, we keep families together, we keep babies and children fed, we educate, we feed, we house, we train, we employ...and we do whatever else we can, system be damned. Like I said, it's broken, has been forever as far as I'm concerned, but it's not yet shattered entirely....so I leave a lot of room to be grateful for that very real fact. I like recognizing the help we DO have available, despite being someone who could really use a little more, but can't get it. I see this system from the inside and the outside...sometimes it's not so easy when the two intertwine. What we have IS better than nothing...and there are children around the world that live off less than a cup of rice a week...so..pardon if I am somewhat grateful for that fact and not keen on comparing us to other nations who can and choose to do more, when there are some nations that can do nothing. 

[ChinRey]

4 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

I was hoping for a thread about sharing wonderful pics of Sl houses

I was hoping for a thread about beautiful SL bridges!

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Much simpler just to have a policy of helping those in need! 

If it were actually simpler, for us in the US, it would be so.....& oh what joy we have more than a bowl of rice to live on in America.

The more you talk about your personal situation the more you prove my point - that health care in the US sucks. You don't have health insurance because you make 10 dollars too much? And you have children to take care of that would be left motherless if something happened to you?  And the pre-existing condition clauses that prevent your getting insurance? And I remember you mentioning in another thread something about not being able to get your vision treated because you can't afford it, yet you are nearly blind?!
In Europe you would not have all these barriers to effective treatment.

You said "The fact that its NOT that simple and NOT that cut and dry, is why we don't have some of the things others do".

I'm sorry, but just NO! The main problem is that Big Pharma & Big Agriculture purchased our politicians, and citizens of the US are viewed more as objects used to line their pockets. In Europe, though not perfect by any means, they pay much less for medication. They don't go bankrupt because of medical bills. They are treated regardless of a pre-existing condition.  And their health care is actually rated as much better! The list goes on, and on, and on -- and the services provided are numerous and go far beyond the main ones I've mentioned (paid maternity leave comes to mind).

Right now I'm sitting here with pus coming out of my effing right eye. And why don't I go to the doctor? Because I'd have to pay for it all as I have a deductible that's thousands of dollars before any coverage kicks in. And even if my deductible had been met I'd have co-pays for Dr. visits and tests that would amount to hundreds/thousands of dollars.  I hope I don't lose my sight. It will probably clear up, and so I'm taking a chance. God Bless 'Murica.

[Luna Bliss]

41 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

I was hoping for a thread about beautiful SL bridges!

I was trying to build a bridge to Europe, ChinRey, but fantasyland is so thick here that many are unable to see that a bridge to a better life is out there..

[Beth Macbain]

Most childcare facilities that accept those government checks aren’t places you’d trust to watch your dog for an hour much less your children. Oh, and they’re also only open during normal daytime business hours, so screw anyone who does shift work like, you know, a large portion of low income workers.

[Luna Bliss]

39 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Most childcare facilities that accept those government checks aren’t places you’d trust to watch your dog for an hour much less your children. Oh, and they’re also only open during normal daytime business hours, so screw anyone who does shift work like, you know, a large portion of low income workers.

I wasn't aware that many of the child care facilities taking government funds were that bad, but it makes sense as they're probably not funded equally. I know many complain that Medicaid for the poor is substandard too, and most likely it's due to inadequate funding. Many doctors won't even take Medicaid due to inadequate compensation.
This is why we need health care and child care which is the same for all, like in Europe -- not lesser quality just because someone is poor.

Looking up govt funded child care, I see that although states receive federal funds it's really up to each state how it's implemented. There are varying income and asset requirements according to different states. In one state there was a long waiting list.

[Lindal Kidd]

Maddy, I'm well aware of all those reasons why we have this mishmash of "adult" ages.  Taken one by one, they make sense.  Taken all together, I maintain it's a wacky system.

Maybe we should believe the actuarial figures and set the Adult threshold at 26.  Surely if you aren't levelheaded enough to be trusted with a car, you aren't levelheaded enough to vote.  But then, I think of all the very smart and grounded 16 and 17 year olds I've known.

Maybe there should be a test to get your Adult certificate.

[Rolig Loon]

I spent a career in higher education, watching 18 to 22 year olds learning the ropes.  In my own private categorization, those are the Apprentice Adults among us: older enough to know better but not experienced enough to actually do it consistently.  Biological, emotional, and logical maturation race to see which one will get out in front temporarily, and they finally start to get in sync after about age 22.  Those Apprentice years are a time to experiment under guidance (not always willingly accepted guidance) and a time to develop confidence and begin to get a sense of direction.  They aren't ready to tightrope without a net yet, but they need space to try taking risks with one.

[Tari Landar]

Lots to cover ..I'll just cover it all in one post, because it's easier for me.

First, I wish people would either ignore my damn posts, or stop skimming them and actually read them if they intend to respond at all. I have said, REPEATEDLY, that we have a broken system, and it needs a lot of work. Some seem to believe that I think otherwise, when my actual words, say differently and couldn't possibly be misconstrued to say anything else unless you're skimming them over and not even reading them. Go back and read them if you want to converse with me, I'll gladly do it...because I see more of the system we have (where it works, where it fails, where it needs work, where it can be improved) than, clearly, some others..and I have no problems discussing all of those points, the good, the bad, the ugly and the indifferent (it's an important topic for me, if that wasn't already made obvious). Reiterating the exact same points over and over because someone wants to ignore them, however, is a bit of a pill

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

The more you talk about your personal situation the more you prove my point - that health care in the US sucks. You don't have health insurance because you make 10 dollars too much? And you have children to take care of that would be left motherless if something happened to you?  And the pre-existing condition clauses that prevent your getting insurance? And I remember you mentioning in another thread something about not being able to get your vision treated because you can't afford it, yet you are nearly blind?!
In Europe you would not have all these barriers to effective treatment.

This is flat out bullspit, sorry but calling a spade a spade here. People act as if people in other countries don't ALSO struggle, don't have difficulty getting medical treatments, all because your glossed over view of "free". (again, go back and read what I said about free...it's NOT free, they pay for it..all of them, in various different ways, NONE Of it is actually "free", which is a huge part of why we struggle to implement better, universal, healthcare...we can't afford to increase taxes to anyone in this country enough to cover what we'd need to do that....yet..maybe someday, but not right now). Do you know why a lot of people LEAVE other countries to come to the US for various treatments, despite the fact that we don't have "free" healthcare? Because they can't get it where they live, have to go on wait-lists for months on end and suffer in the meantime waiting, yes, even in Europe. The hospitals and specialists me and my family use (well, have used over the years) are world renowned for a reason, and more than 35% of their patients aren't from this continent, but rather...Europe.  Although that has sod all to do with us having affordable healthcare...it does relate to the fact that the healthcare people can get in other countries isn't always sunshine and rainbows either, despite being "free". Do you REALLY think that people in other countries can simply go to the doctor and not have to worry about paying for it, or covering lost wages if work has to be missed, or covering other bills, or whatever other expenses they too (like we) will have? Do you really think they aren't somehow paying for that care in some form or another?  If that is what you think, you're misguided, and misinformed (that goes back to that "free stuff" you think is free, not actually being free). I can't tell if that's what you think, which is why I ask, you don't have to actually answer though, just something to actually research and ponder, I suppose.
 

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'm sorry, but just NO! The main problem is that Big Pharma & Big Agriculture purchased our politicians, and citizens of the US are viewed more as objects used to line their pockets. In Europe, though not perfect by any means, they pay much less for medication. They don't go bankrupt because of medical bills. They are treated regardless of a pre-existing condition.  And their health care is actually rated as much better! The list goes on, and on, and on -- and the services provided are numerous and go far beyond the main ones I've mentioned (paid maternity leave comes to mind).

Again, you're misinformed, severely. Yes, people do, still,  often pay a lot for medication in many areas of the world (some less than us, some more, but don't pretend they all have literally no cost, that's simply not true). Yes, many do have a lot of out of pocket medical expenses not covered. Yes they also have a lot of things covered we don't, too.  Yes, families do go bankrupt, lose things and have to go on other assistance programs  because of medical bills, lost work, etc... Many (most, perhaps, on this I'm not clear) don't have pre-existing condition clauses, because they also don't have many insurance providers like we do, they have universal care and things similar (which is a huge fault in our system, like I already stated), and they're ALL paying for their own medical care through various taxes (aka, not free), not JUST the rich (although as already pointed out by someone else, their rich pay more in taxes just like our rich, including businesses, do, you just don't seem to want to accept that fact). There are a WHOLE lot of benefits to the systems other countries have regarding medical care, I never once denied such and why you're so fixated on believing I've said anything to the contrary is beyond me.  Again...our...system....is...broken. Those words couldn't possibly be more clear, yet you choose to ignore them every single time I type them. Shrugs...weird.

I discussed way more than just medical assistance though, because they're all important, not just medical care. 

Also for your snarky "oh what joy we have more than a bowl of rice to live on in America." comment...YES you should be damn grateful that we can provide more food than that for people here, we should ALL be damn grateful about that (while STILL working towards providing more, and better...we should always strive to do better, even while being grateful for that which we have). We should be grateful that we have any type of assistance, even though it's broken assistance, because something is always better than nothing. I don't think you actually understand how much our food programs (food stamps and WIC primarily) Actually HELP families in this country...even though (And I again, said this too) it could be a whole lot better (I"d prefer no nation anywhere in the world need it, but, clearly, we ALL do and some nations fail miserably, far worse than we do!)

 It is absolutely heartbreaking and devastating that there are so many areas of the world where that's not possible, where children die of hunger....friggen HUNGER! It is heartbreaking that there are children all over Europe, even, the area you keep praising for fantastic medical care, that are homeless, living on the streets, living completely on assistance programs for generation after generation (there are some fascinating documentaries on youtube if you care to look them up..and that's not meant snarky..but some of them are a bit harsh when they open your eyes to the reality of poverty the world over, even in developed countries), aren't getting enough to eat, and a lot of them don't finish school in many areas, nor are they expected to.......Why don't people seem to care about their food intake as much as they do their ability to walk into a doctor's office, a doctor's office isn't going to put food in their tummies? Their system is no more perfect than our system is, even if some aspects of their system work better than ours, like healthcare. There are aspects in other nations which are absolutely horrendous. Your words read as if "free healthcare", because we don't have it, makes every other area better...while ignoring the parts of their systems that don't work, flat out fail,  too.  In Britain alone, over 20% of people live in poverty (which is NOT considered low income there, it's destitution), while not even 13% of people in the US do and our numbers are going down, while all of their numbers are on the rise (rapidly growing actually). Good medical care isn't feeding their nation's children.  Our various assistance programs, even being broken, attribute a hell of a lot to why our numbers aren't higher (Like they have been in the past and could easily be). 

Again...broken system..didn't deny it, never have denied it, never would deny it. There is still some function to it, however, and I'm not so willfully ignorant that I'll ignore that very real fact. I see families in low income, poverty, absolute destitution, all the time (mine has been one). I speak and work with them on a daily basis, actually. I also see families get a hand up, become able to stand on their own two feet, and do better (both staying on and getting off assistance, whichever is needed) because of the numerous programs we do have in place that other areas of the world do not.  I won't ignore those benefits because our healthcare sucks donkey toes...and, it DOES. 

 

3 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

Most childcare facilities that accept those government checks aren’t places you’d trust to watch your dog for an hour much less your children. Oh, and they’re also only open during normal daytime business hours, so screw anyone who does shift work like, you know, a large portion of low income workers.

Most daycares and child care centers, minus some in-home ones that refuse to certify (or legally can't, because...we have regulations) take the vouchers (because its a guaranteed payment AND they can charge the government more than they might otherwise, there are even centers that only deal with these programs and no one else in many areas). Things with those programs have changed a TON over the years, it is far better than it has ever been, more centers are willing to be certified providers for parents receiving the aid, more centers have opened,  and generally MOST parents' standards have gone up (those are all good things). They are not all, or even most, crappy places like you, or anyone else assumes. Are there crappy ones? You bet your butt there are (I HATE THAT), and people use them including people NOT using the program, not because they HAVE to, but because they CHOOSE to. Those places being crappy has nothing at all to do with childcare assistance programs, and everything to do with generally crappy people (the ones who own those centers, and work at them) That's a slight against those parents for continuing to take their children there, not standing up for their children, not finding better care, and not caring to..well, care, and a slight against the people that run and work at them. We have crappy daycares in this state too, like every other state. Why people send their children to them and how they stay open at all, is beyond me. I suppose if people stopped sending their kids there, they'd finally close, eh? It's maddening, I don't like it either, I don't think most people do, but it speaks volumes about anyone that chooses to send their child to one..and spare me the "it's the only choice available"...because it's not, especially if you're using an assistance program, the number of centers you can use is growing every single year, all over the US. 

 I too wish there were more accommodating centers for people who work shift work (with or without accepting the vouchers, this is a problem, always has been), it sucks that there aren't more of them. Again, that has nothing to do with childcare assistance or its availability, but a lack of centers willing to be open those hours. There is little anyone can do about that, except encourage more centers to accommodate more hours (and hell they'd make more money if they did, so it's sound advice any way you slice it). We have a few centers where I live, most parents either go a town in any direction, or use one of the few we do have (all of which are actually really nice, and are certified providers, one of them is actually open weekends and nights too, which is great for shift workers and definitely not typical). A lot of parents that live here and have children young enough for daycare don't actually work here in this town though (we're over 50% rural anyway, so..kinda limited on employment in this town to begin with, lol). By and large we have more people that use other assistance programs than we do childcare here (like MOST towns in the US), and a lot of those who do use childcare only use it part time here.  Other cities are different of course but the odds of finding a good child care center, which everyone should want anyway, that is certified, grows exponentially when you get to a more populated area. A guaranteed payment straight from the government, no worries about parents being able to afford, or remembering to pay on time...waaaay less hassle, are all benefits for the center, so few have reason not to accept the programs. Another benefit some people don't know about these centers is that these grants cover more than childcare vouchers in MOST States (I think there are 3 that don't do this, but that is by choice of the state..and I don't know why, I"D have to ask someone more versed in those states, because I"m not). They actually get things like diapers, food, formula, toys, supplies, furniture, equipment (including security equipment), and other necessary things through the grants and organizations that donate too.  Like I said though, these programs are a lot different than they once were and far more money is allotted to them than ever before. Doesn't stop rumor mills and myths, of course....

[BelindaN]

I wasn't an adult at eighteen,  and quite honestly I don't sometimes think like an adult now.

 

[Annie Nova]

16 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

Using the example given...minimum wage...that mother would qualify to receive: full childcare , Medicaid for her child and herself, WIC (women infants and children, they provide some basic foods, formulas, even prescription ones, etc. for pregnant and nursing mothers, infants and children up to age 5) food assistance...all completely "Free" to her (minus the portion of her taxes, like yours and mine which go towards assistance), potentially rent and utility assistance, and possibly even cash assistance.....in every single state in this great nation, based on the federal poverty level (state and local play no role whatsoever). A social worker would actually know this, but it can also be found online with a quick search, for anyone who isn't.

 

I NEVER get into debates like this but this is something that hasn't been addressed. 

While this is true, what you haven't said is that even though said person is working and does have this available to them, IF they get a raise, OR they work more then the allotted amount of hours worked, their assistance is cut, especially the money and the EBT (food stamps). While I do agree that we should be moving away from the assisted help, it is quite hard if you cannot make a living wage. Being an owner of a business I see this all the time. Single mothers who are trying to provide a living for their child/ren often are handcuffed by the restraints that the government has put on them. 

[Jagix Linden]

Remember when this thread was about land? Good times.

Thread's locked, y'all. Let's try to stay on topic next time!