Dream of children's home slowly fades

[Really]

CyBear wrote:

<quoted text>
The foster care system is far from perfect. However, it is also far better than a warehouse. As to the other allegations you make, foster parent abuse of children is very rare, never mind dead. Kids do not 'end up missing for months' without being reported immediately in Minnesota.
<< Sadly, there are quite a few foster parents and relatives that take the children because they are a garunteed paycheck every month, with free dental and medical benifits. >>
Foster parents get NO DENTAL OR MEDICAL BENEFITS WHATSOEVER, ANYWHERE IN MINNESOTA. Neither do their children. They must provide those for themselves with no help from the state or county. They also do not get a guaranteed paycheck. They get the equivalent of child support as long as the children are in their care. It is sufficient, but by no means generous.
<< And not all the "foster subsidy" goes to the kids or to care for them either.(there are a lot of really good foster parents out there though, but I think the bad outweighs the good) >>
Whom does the foster subsidy go to then, if not for the support of the children? For the most part, you have only revealed your abject ignorance.

yes, I'm ignorant, and you can't read. BIG WORDS WON'T TRICK ANYONE INTO THINKING YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR'R TALKING ABOUT! The medical benifits go to the foster children, not the foster parents. Re-read, slowly.

What do you think the cash benifits go to? You seem like a gung ho republican, where do welfare benifits go if not to the kids?! Beer, cigarettes, going to the club, whatever other expenses the inept person deems reasonable for the household, yada yada yada. Not to the kids.

And of course, the foster care system in MN is PERFECT. None of the kids come out screwed up, just like in any other state. And you know this because you are an expert on the foster care system. Look at the statistics for children that come out of foster care: their employment rates, criminal histories, etc. I wouldn't call foster care a success by ANY means.

I can't remember the little girls name, it was about 3 years ago, she went for a supervised visit with her mother, and didn't get returned to foster care for 63 days, and the foster mother didn't report it, because she kept getting her check. And the lady that lived next to me in St. Paul and had 3 foster children? The kids that were always outside by themselves, stealing bikes while she had parties and BBQs, and told me how much she got for each child? yeah, she was perfect to. Or the sister in law of a friend of mine, who takes in teenage girls, ages 12-17. Great lady, her son is 26 year old felon on parole that recently was caught "dating" one of the 15 year olds. Of course, he can't live there because he's a felon, but hey, I can write anything on paper too.

Of course normal people don't think that the subsidy is "generous", but I don't think the welfare check some people get for $400/month is generous either. By our standards of living, it's not worth it. But to a broke person with no options, it's a helluva lot of money.

[Really]

Robin wrote:

Why in the hell you subhuman people on this thread are criticizing the Copelands for something that didn't expect for them out of the blue? Are you folks bitter in heart that Mary Joe challenged the Foster Care industry for introducing an alternative without the use of taxpayer money---unlike the mainstream foster care system where currency flows like Espresso drinks for them? Is that what makes you selfish liberals boil over whenever you see Mary Joe in media ads or in the news, promoting her cause?
If I known better, the poor gal had been portrayed as the "bad guy" by the community activists and city council elites in Eagan when she first started her program (with the kids) in the first place many years ago. I wonder if this unfortunate episode was orchestrated by the foster care industry lobby as a way to show revenge against her and her husband.

I'm liberal, and I'd support her. Seems like liberals would like her plan.

And the foster care "industry" is government, therefore no lobbyists. What the Copelands were trying to do was essentially private foster care.

[Mrs R]

"And the foster care "industry" is government, therefore no lobbyists. What the Copelands were trying to do was essentially private foster care."

Mr. Really, you really hit the nail right on the head with what you said. I think the main reason people don't like this project is because the Copeland person is striking out on her own on a completely useless and unneccesary project. Like many have said on here, we ALREADY have numerous governmental agencies to take care of these kind of things. Let's just fund the government properly and let it do the job. We don't need private citizens like this thinking they need to do the government's job.

As far as personality, I have never met this person and know nothing about her. I do give her the benefit of the doubt in that she means well. Unfortunately she doesn't realize, like many misguided conservatives, that we don't need private organizations to do government's job. Let's just get out of the way, stop trying to supplant government, and let the professionals do their job.

[Reality Czech]

Oh, Mrs R - you prove your amazing intelligence with each and every post.

Perhaps if everyone criticizing the Copelands took just one hour to trot on down to Sharing and Caring Hands and see for yourselves what they're doing, at least motive and personality topics wouldn't be pure conjecture from bored workers and starry-eyed idealists who like to see their nickname in print.

The only thing "useless and unnecessary" are any more posts from Mrs R. Oy vey - get over yourself.

[AndrewEss]

Mrs R wrote:

"And the foster care "industry" is government, therefore no lobbyists. What the Copelands were trying to do was essentially private foster care."
Mr. Really, you really hit the nail right on the head with what you said. I think the main reason people don't like this project is because the Copeland person is striking out on her own on a completely useless and unneccesary project. Like many have said on here, we ALREADY have numerous governmental agencies to take care of these kind of things. Let's just fund the government properly and let it do the job. We don't need private citizens like this thinking they need to do the government's job.
As far as personality, I have never met this person and know nothing about her. I do give her the benefit of the doubt in that she means well. Unfortunately she doesn't realize, like many misguided conservatives, that we don't need private organizations to do government's job. Let's just get out of the way, stop trying to supplant government, and let the professionals do their job.

Foster care is very much privatized government largesse and full of lobbyists on the tax dime, whatsup don't like others or competition. Give me a break.

[Really]

Mrs R wrote:

"And the foster care "industry" is government, therefore no lobbyists. What the Copelands were trying to do was essentially private foster care."
Mr. Really, you really hit the nail right on the head with what you said. I think the main reason people don't like this project is because the Copeland person is striking out on her own on a completely useless and unneccesary project. Like many have said on here, we ALREADY have numerous governmental agencies to take care of these kind of things. Let's just fund the government properly and let it do the job. We don't need private citizens like this thinking they need to do the government's job.
As far as personality, I have never met this person and know nothing about her. I do give her the benefit of the doubt in that she means well. Unfortunately she doesn't realize, like many misguided conservatives, that we don't need private organizations to do government's job. Let's just get out of the way, stop trying to supplant government, and let the professionals do their job.

Are you serious, or do you just come on here to see the reply's you can get? "let the professionals do their jobs" REALLY??????????

The professionals that can't keep dangerous people in prison, that can't lower my gas bill, that's take money for their own interests, that tax me more because I live the normal way, the PROFESSIONALS that allow doped up truckers, the PROFESSIONALS that don't give a damn about any kids, just their numbers?

Do you live in real life, or are you on happy pills? If someone didn't try to do better, their be no checks for the government system. Or, we could revert 60 years to communism, and not question the government.

So maybe it was a bad idea, maybe not. I doubt you're out helping anyone, EVER. When's the last time you did anything for anyone else? But I bet you have no problem complaining about our welfare state.

[Mrs R]

Really, as a community (otherwise known as "government") we can do so much more for society than we can as "rugged individualists" like you conservatives like to push. Individual efforts lead to selfishness and too many people going in too many different directions. When we work as a group society is much more healthy.

[Heywood Ja]

Mrs R wrote:

Really, as a community (otherwise known as "government") we can do so much more for society than we can as "rugged individualists" like you conservatives like to push. Individual efforts lead to selfishness and too many people going in too many different directions. When we work as a group society is much more healthy.

Spoken like a true Communist.

Sheesh...

[Really]

Mrs R wrote:

Really, as a community (otherwise known as "government") we can do so much more for society than we can as "rugged individualists" like you conservatives like to push. Individual efforts lead to selfishness and too many people going in too many different directions. When we work as a group society is much more healthy.

I'm not conservative, and I seriously think you put fake posts, just to get a reaction. Wouldn't a "conservative" say go with Big government? A liberal would be all for privatisation?

Your full of BS.

[Sarah D]

From everything I've heard about her throughout the years, it seems that Copeland is her own worst enemy.

[Buttomfly]

Clint wrote:

<quoted text>
What "wealth" are you referring to? There are a few very nice suburbs where a lot of wealth is concentrated in the Twin Cities but most areas or people here are working-middle class who are just trying to provide a decent upbringing for their families and don't have time or money to get involved in saving the world like a George Soros. Unfortunately the state's social services are turning modest areas into more and more crime filled and declining rat holes that are not family friendly so we have to move further and further out into the boonies.

Once again are we not to believe the published media?

St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN)- June 25, 2008 - C1 Business

MINNESOTA MINTS MILLIONAIRES SURVEY: STATE'S 7-DIGIT RANKS GREW 25% TO 69,000 LAST YEAR
Talk about your disconnects. On the same day that consumer confidence hit a low not seen since the 1990s-era Bush administration, word came that the ranks of millionaires in the Twin Cities swelled in 2007, according to a survey from Merrill Lynch & Co. and data from market research firm Claritas. The number of millionaire households in the Twin Cities jumped 25 percent last year, to 69,044, according to the survey, which did not include the value of people's homes

[CyBear]

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
yes, I'm ignorant, and you can't read. BIG WORDS WON'T TRICK ANYONE INTO THINKING YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR'R TALKING ABOUT! The medical benifits go to the foster children, not the foster parents. Re-read, slowly.

Your point was that foster parents do foster care for the medical benefits. Your point that you were talking about medical care for the kids is simply a lie.

<< What do you think the cash benifits go to? >>

Groceries, house payment, utility bills.

<< You seem like a gung **** republican >>

Yep.

<< where do welfare benifits go if not to the kids?! Beer, cigarettes, going to the club, whatever other expenses the inept person deems reasonable for the household, yada yada yada. Not to the kids. >>

Do you really think foster parents spend their stipend this way??? Don't be an idiot.

<< And of course, the foster care system in MN is PERFECT. >>

I have already said otherwise.

<< None of the kids come out screwed up, just like in any other state. And you know this because you are an expert on the foster care system. Look at the statistics for children that come out of foster care: their employment rates, criminal histories, etc. I wouldn't call foster care a success by ANY means. >>

Those "statistics" do not exist. Nevertheless, I quite agree that the system is screwed up royally, but not because of the foster care aspect of it. Also, keep in mind that those kids who come into foster care are in trouble already.

<< I can't remember the little girls name, it was about 3 years ago, she went for a supervised visit with her mother, and didn't get returned to foster care for 63 days, and the foster mother didn't report it, because she kept getting her check. >>

Florida. Idiot. That would be impossible in Minnesota.

<< And the lady that lived next to me in St. Paul and had 3 foster children? The kids that were always outside by themselves, stealing bikes while she had parties and BBQs, and told me how much she got for each child? >>

I don't believe a word of it.

<< yeah, she was perfect to. Or the sister in law of a friend of mine, who takes in teenage girls, ages 12-17. Great lady, her son is 26 year old felon on parole that recently was caught "dating" one of the 15 year olds. Of course, he can't live there because he's a felon, but hey, I can write anything on paper too. >>

Another blatant lie.

<< Of course normal people don't think that the subsidy is "generous", but I don't think the welfare check some people get for $400/month is generous either. By our standards of living, it's not worth it. But to a broke person with no options, it's a helluva lot of money. >>

Those sort of people can't be foster parents. They do not pass muster. The process to become one is rather arduous.

All you have done is smear the good names of those who take care of those in our society who need help in time of crisis. What a pig.

[CyBear]

AndrewEss wrote:

<quoted text> Foster care is very much privatized government largesse and full of lobbyists on the tax dime, whatsup don't like others or competition. Give me a break.

I know of not one single paid lobbyist for foster parents.

[AndrewEss]

CyBear wrote:

<quoted text>
I know of not one single paid lobbyist for foster parents.

The system itself is the lobbyist, take a peek at the top level of management and the business of trading in children. The largesse is just creaming the taxpayer with duplicity. Title IV pig troughs attract the very best and most articulate of political/business interest. We and our kids were put on the market wholesale, I believe it goes back to clintonomics.

[Sarah D]

Mrs R wrote:

Really, as a community (otherwise known as "government") we can do so much more for society than we can as "rugged individualists" like you conservatives like to push. Individual efforts lead to selfishness and too many people going in too many different directions. When we work as a group society is much more healthy.

Depends on the group, dear. I don't think the SDS or the KKK were groups that were very healthy for society.

[Sarah D]

Reality Czech wrote:

Oh, Mrs R - you prove your amazing intelligence with each and every post.
Perhaps if everyone criticizing the Copelands took just one hour to trot on down to Sharing and Caring Hands and see for yourselves what they're doing, at least motive and personality topics wouldn't be pure conjecture from bored workers and starry-eyed idealists who like to see their nickname in print.
The only thing "useless and unnecessary" are any more posts from Mrs R. Oy vey - get over yourself.

I said before, Copeland is her own worst enemy. Her attitude is "my way or the highway". If she had been willing to negotiate she would probably have gotten her children's home. But she insists on having her way on everything.

That's not how you get things done in this day and age.

[Really BHL]

CyBear wrote:

<quoted text>
Your point was that foster parents do foster care for the medical benefits. Your point that you were talking about medical care for the kids is simply a lie.
<< What do you think the cash benifits go to? >>
Groceries, house payment, utility bills.
<< You seem like a gung **** republican >>
Yep.

Oh, someone doesn't like it when they're disagreed with. Neither of those situations was a lie, they're both fact. I've seen the "benifits for the children" wasted. The process isn't that hard anymore, Hennipen county is screaming for foster parents. I don't care if you believe me, just like our other state systems foster care is beyond help. Glad you can so easily close your eyes to the problems, and call them "blatant lies". The second scenario, the person in question was turned in to DFS, and KEPT HER FOSTER CARE ABILITY! Why? Because her son just left the house for a month, the investigation was over, and he moved back in. Do you dispute the fact that you can't have felons living with you if you provide foster care?
And the situation with the girl who disappeared, was not Florida, IDIOT. It happened in Minnesota. It's also happened in MI< WI, NE, and MO.
I can keep my states straight, MORON.
Once again, my first post didn't say that the foster parents got medical benifits, the children do. One less expense for them. And like I said at the beginning, not all are bad, but there are a bunch out there. A lot of situations are family members that take care of the children, they receive the stipend for foster parents, and they're not Mrs. Johnson from the suburbs. They do spend their stipend like welfare recipients spend their monthly check, and it's not on the kids.
Unlike you, I don't try to pretend to be an expert. You probably work for DFS, the way you're denying it all.
And the kids that go to foster care are they're because they're PARENTS are screwed up, they aren't until they get passed around for a few years, and then sent off on their own at 18.
Yes the statistics do exist. Use google, you can find them. MNDOC actually tracks that aspect of incoming offenders. So does DFS. Maybe they're not easy to find because oh, the results aren't so good?

[Really BHL]

CyBear wrote:

<quoted text>
I know of not one single paid lobbyist for foster parents.

Your actually right this time, but once again your post screams "I know everything about it because I said so! I don't research it, I just call people names! I'm 14!"

[Really BHL]

Oh yes, the foster care subsidy is much more than foster care. In the office building I work in, I see many instances of men (and a few women) paying child support, taken from their paycheck. Semi-Professionals being paid approximatley $50-60 K/year, and they have $175 taken from each check for child support. I don't see how many kids it's for, but from talking with a few people, I know that they are paying for 2-3 children. I'm sure they do other things for the kids, but that's what they're child support requirement is.$175x2 paychecks =$350/month.

CyBear, since you know everything, how much is a foster care subsidy these days? My neighbor in St. Paul received, for one child without any special disabilities,$650/month,+ medical,+ that child's "share" of the food stamps was $125. That's a lot more than child support. And I lived in the same place, if she at minimum received that much for the other 3 children she had well more than her rent on a 3 bedroom townhouse covered. They let her have 2 kids/bedroom. Now this woman worked during the day, and she drove a brand new car, bought Coach bags, and seriously had parties every weekend. But the kids were in WalMart clothes,cheap shoes, and hardley ever went to school, plus they were the cause of most of annoying petty crime in the neighborhood. They never looked put together, never got to do normal kid things, and I'm sure are future problems to society. I understand this woman and her husband wern't their actual parents, but they were supposed to do a lot more than they did.

[CyBear]

AndrewEss wrote:

<quoted text>
The system itself is the lobbyist, take a peek at the top level of management and the business of trading in children. The largesse is just creaming the taxpayer with duplicity. Title IV pig troughs attract the very best and most articulate of political/business interest. We and our kids were put on the market wholesale, I believe it goes back to clintonomics.

This is NOT the point you made.