Foster children (in MI) would be allowed to get clothing only from second hand stores

[Bozita]

Source: Michigan Messenger

Foster children would be allowed to get clothing only from second hand stores
By Todd A. Heywood
04.22.11 | 11:40 am

Under a new budget proposal from State Sen. Bruce Casswell, children in the state’s foster care system would be allowed to purchase clothing only in used clothing stores.

Casswell, a Republican representing Branch, Hillsdale, Lenawee and St. Joseph counties, made the proposal this week, reports Michigan Public Radio.

His explanation?

“I never had anything new,” Caswell says. “I got all the hand-me-downs. And my dad, he did a lot of shopping at the Salvation Army, and his comment was — and quite frankly it’s true — once you’re out of the store and you walk down the street, nobody knows where you bought your clothes.”

Under his plan, foster children would receive gift cards that could only be used at places like the Salvation Army, Goodwill and other second hand clothing stores.

Read more: http://michiganmessenger.com/48487/foster-children-would-be-allowed-to-get-clothing-only-from-second-hand-stores

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Paging Charles Dickens ...

[xchrom]

3. indeed. nt

[TatonkaJames]

62. Exactly !

[defendandprotect]

90. +1

[damntexdem]

2. Are we sure Casswell's real name isn't Dickens?

Please sir, more.

[toddwv]

45. Well, we could compromise and call him Dickwell or Cassdick.

That way we don't have to worry about it.

[arikara]

128. Beelzebub more like it.

What a what a miserable slimey creep.

[LisaL]

56. Yea. I am not sure what he is is trying to do there?

Recreate Oliver Twist?

[KurtNYC]

he is trying to get his father's love and approval

I'm serious. And it's right there in his anecdote.

[freshwest]

82. Wow, you're right. Now he's forcing it on others. Bet he'll get away with it.

[LisaL]

83. Is his father even still with us?

[freshwest]

184. Doesn't matter, he's memorializing his values.

[alp227]

97. Drop the C from his last name and liberally pronounce the 2nd syllable n/t

[JHB]

135. Dickens illustrated those problems...

...and how terrible they were. The name you're looking for is more likely Fagin or Scrooge.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

153. I think his real name is Dickwad. n/m

[Duer 157099]

4. As horrible as it sounds (and is intended no doubt)

the quality of the used clothing is usually so much better than that of brand new crap.

Although kids, especially teens, don't really care about that, they just want what everyone else is wearing.

[Wait Wut]

16. Very, very true.

What they can get at Salvation Army is much better than Walmart and will probably last a lot longer.

[iemitsu]

54. actually, much of what can be bought at a thrift store

originally came from walmart or similar stores. some of the items were once expensive but not most.
this proposal is draconian and about creating visibly distinct populations. foster children did nothing wrong to deserve this distinction.

[Shallah Kali]

57. you are correct

I am low income and shop thrift stores and a lot of what they have is from low end retail stores with some midrange and a few high end mixed in. & often it is the same or even cheaper to hit walmart or other stores discount rack than getting it at a thrift store at least in my area. I pay attention so I can get the most for my few $.

[iemitsu]

65. i also shop at thrift stores.

i have found many unique items which allow me to dress as an individual. i don't want to look like anyone else. but this is my choice not mandated by some mean spirited old creep.
social mobility is an important part of the american myth. it is difficult to believe that some would legislate such class distinctions.
why not just make them wear a scarlet F for foster? or perhaps a B for bad seed?

[laundry_queen]

150. I was going to say that

I just got a bunch of shirts for my kids for next winter for cheaper than I'd find at a thrift store. All brand new, and brand names too (must be seconds, the tags were cut out but couldn't see any flaws myself...) This is pretty ridiculous to force them to buy second hand. Ever been in a consignment store? Technically you could buy second hand and spend a small fortune.

[Wait Wut]

63. I'm not so sure about that.

I've been shopping at thrift stores for decades (not kidding...I'm really that old) and a good friend of mine manages the Salvation Army store here. I've personally never seen the crap quality of Walmart and my friend goes on rants about the "ridiculously expensive clothes" that people donate that still have all the tags on them. Of course, then she tells me what great outfits she's put together.

Walmart clothes don't hold up long, especially with children. Second hand clothes are not a label, they're inexpensive alternatives that no one will notice. I would much rather have my child dressed in nice, used clothes than the crap at Walmart. I used to buy his "play" clothes there and stopped when I realized they would just fall apart.

But, maybe the thrift stores in Arizona and Illinois are just that much better than where you are.

[iemitsu]

68. there is plenty of nice stuff at thrift stores

but one cannot rush out and find what one is looking for the same way one can at a retail outlet.
i too am old and have always shopped at second hand stores (i have never even been in a walmart). my son grew up wearing clothes bought at thrift stores. i am not against wearing second hand clothing but thrift store shopping is a time investment and one gets what one finds. sometimes that means buying nothing.
it is not easy to shop for children this way if one has a busy schedule.
i would rather they legislate that foster children wore only clothing "made in america".

[mzteris]

154. "cannot rush out and find . . ."

Especially when you're having to outfit them in everything - underwear, socks, pants, tops, something to sleep in maybe, frequently shoes, coats, mittens, hats, if it's winter - because they typically have NOTHING but the clothes on their backs!! - or next to nothing - and what little they possess is often too small/too big or in such poor condition it's not fit to wear.

[notadmblnd]

76. yeah well, we all don't know someone who works for Sally's

and gets to go through and pick out the good stuff first.

From what I've seen in thrift stores, it's still cheaply made, over priced crap.

[Honeycombe8]

108. Recycle, recycle, recycle. Don't forget to give YOUR quality clothing to charity...

and dont forget to SHOP at thrift stores.

It's a frugal, practical way of life. And it helps the charity and the environment.

Save your $$$ for new electronics. That's one thing that may be a problem buying used. But clothing? A LOT of kids' clothing is very good...they grow out of them so fast.

[ejpoeta]

142. why should they be able to mandate this? i can go in and get stuff on clearance at walmart, kmart

and other places and in fact until my eldest was ten she only had hand me downs, yard sale stuff and clearance stuff. but that should not be a mandated thing. foster parents should be able to make those choices themselves.

[Honeycombe8]

106. You have to sift thru junk, but high quality clothing @ bargain prices can be found.

It makes sense to buy kids' clothing used. They grow out of clothing so fast. It's commonly done, where I come from.

Last year I gave away several pairs of high quality work heels and flats(Naturalizer and other brands)...never worn. I also gave away Levi's and other brand name jeans that I'd had for years and gotten too fat for, but which were in great shape. I also gave away a box of work and casual tops that were either never worn, or worn once.

I BOUGHT last year at a thrift store....several Ralph Lauren work tops (I've had compliments galore on them!), and a designer violet silk top that is awesome, and the piece de resistance....a VERY useful navy cord cool looking jacket from CHICO'S.

And don't forget...the foster parents have the right to spend their own money on anything for the foster kids. So if they want to buy new, they can. If it were me, though, I'd spend MY $$$ on electronics & things like that that kids like...and use the govt $$$ to buy used clothing. I guarantee no one will know the clothing is used, unless they tell them.

Many Americans have lost the ability to shop for bargains, and to shop sparingly. I can't count the people I know who claim to have financial trouble, and yet they own one or more flat panel TVs, new laptops, carry expensive Iphone contracts, drive a 5 year old car (which I consider a new car), and never set foot in a thrift shop. We have lost our ability to live with cost in mind. To think about "need" versus "want." "New" vs "used." If something breaks, we throw it away and get a new one. We MUST have an Iphone (really? We "must"? No, we don't. Don't "need" one, although I would like one. But that's too expensive for a "want" item.)

It doesn't matter, in the scheme of things. Buy good, used clothing, and move on. Teach the kid what really matters in life...getting good grades, having a loving family and good friends, physical activity, eating healthy, having a bit of fun, etc., etc. If the kid doesn't want used clothing, tell him that's all the more reason to get good grades & get a good job, so when he grows up, he'll have the $$$ to buy whatever he wants....new. But for now, someone else is paying the bills, so we need to stretch the $$$ as far as possible, and hey, aren't these jeans cool? I'd have to pay $100 to get a pair of these jeans in the store....that are made to look USED!

[Matariki]

60. I don't think the essence of what is so very wrong with this has anything to do with quality

of merchandise. A LAW that forces someone to shop only in second hand stores? SERIOUSLY? That is extremely creepy.

[iemitsu]

71. you are absolutely right.

this proposed law would create a legal class of citizens who would be allowed access to a limited piece of the american pie. and these are children who have done nothing wrong!
the idea is outrageous.

[barbtries]

195. exactly

it's not that it's wrong or right to shop one place or another. it's mandating one over the other that sucks.

eta: and this from the party that wants government out of our lives??

[MilesColtrane]

201. Yes, this law informs those children that they are worth less than everyone else.

...that they are fundamentally flawed in comparison to those who are not in foster care.

...that they may as well not strive to rise above their terrible lot in life.

In a sane world, this political bozo would be hounded out of office in shame.

[jmowreader]

64. You're kidding, right?

I've spoken to the people who run the secondhand shops around here. They have two kinds of clothes: very, very expensive items that have gone out of style and for which the donors ALWAYS want receipts (IOW they want the government to pay them for cleaning out their closets), and Walmart shit that's in the process of falling apart. And most of it's in the second category.

I'm agreeing with the Dickensian aspects of this.

[Doremus]

91. That's just silly.

You think thrift stores are stocked only by donations from people who shop at expensive boutiques?

If that were the case there would be a horrible shortage of clothes in thrift shops, don't you think?

[Duer 157099]

93. That's missing the point

it doesn't have to do with "expensive" it has to do with quality. Older clothing is almost universally of higher quality. I shop thrift stores all the time, so I know this to be true. The stuff I can find in a thrift store is magnitudes higher in quality that the schlock they have at Walmart, Target, Kmart, etc. Even something as simple as t-shirts-- the older ones are better quality.

[mzteris]

157. you're missing the point!

relegating these victims to an even more offical "second class status" telling them "you're not good enough for new clothes".

[Duer 157099]

188. I absolutely got that point

I was making a different point altogether

[Honeycombe8]

105. I totally agree. I shop at thrift stores sometimes. Great bargains to be had.

I also gave last year a lot of NEVER WORN clothing to a Humane Society thrift store. Incl. several pairs of high quality work shoes never worn.

I own more than few items of used clothing....designer, new-looking clothing that I got at bargain prices.

There is no shame buying used clothing. Where I come from, young families with small children regularly shop thrift stores & garage sales for kids' clothing. It's very common. Kids grow out of clothes so fast, it's considered common sense to buy used, and pass it on again after the kid grows out of it, if it's still wearable at that point.

Americans have gotten so spoiled (incl. me) with buying new things all the time. How did I end up with all those clothes that I never wore? I'm going to pay more attention to what I buy in the future so that I don't end up with clothes I don't wear.

Don't tell people those new jeans came from a thrift store, and they'll never know. That's much better than buying cheaply made jeans from Walmart, or $100 designer jeans from a dept store (made to look USED!).

[Throckmorton]

265. Nothing like that thrift shop underware

and socks.

[mrcheerful]

5. So because his dad was a skin flint he wants to punish kids that were removed from

their parents for nothing they did and keep them from having new things. Just how low can R's go?

[Honeycombe8]

107. Being frugal is a GOOD thing. So many of the posters to this OP are spoiled rotten!

Have you guys forgotten how to live with cost in mind? Have you guys NEVER shopped in thrift stores?

This is not a weird, off the beaten path way of life. I do it, and I can afford to buy new clothing (and I do....but of course, it's MY money; if someone else were paying for it, they would have the right to tell me how much I could spend & dictate other terms. That's the deal, when other people pay your way.)

This seems like common sense to me. It's just a shame that hte foster parents have to be TOLD to bargain shop. I would've thought they would've wanted to stretch the dollars as far as they could, to begin with.

Having just gone through a recession, I would've thought people would've gone back to recognizing the value of used things as a way of saving $$$$.

There is no shame in buying used. Teach the kids this, and they'll be all the better for it. Buy used clothing, and move on to important things. What's important to a foster child is that he have a stable loving environment, good friends, healthy food, good schooling, physical activity, and decent (hopefully cool) clothing (which can be bought successfully at thrift stores).

[mrcheerful]

124. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being frugal, what bothers me is the

wording that foster kids are only allowed to have second hand clothes bought from thrift stores. Think about it, how much control do you want to give government? That is what it is really about, government saying because you were taken from your parents you can't have any new clothes because you don't have a right to new clothes. Where is this leading? People that are on welfare shouldn't be able to buy anything the government deems unnecessary, though in Michigan the poor on welfare are only allowed to own 1 $1,500 auto, which is how I knew the Right wing poor people driving brand new caddies bs was in fact bs.

You do know that non family members who take in foster kids can get $130 to $400 a day for taking care of foster kids? So foster parents who get as little as $1,900 a month shouldn't be allowed to buy new clothes with some of that money? I'm sorry but living on SSDI with a partner who gets SSI our combined income is less then $1,900 a month so that means I do own a lot of thrift store clothes and so did our son when he was still in school, but around tax time we did go out and buy him new clothes. Here is the link to foster parenting in Michigan, to let folks know I didn't pull numbers out my ass.

http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5452_7117_7658-14898--,00.html

[mzteris]

158. wtf do people get that much?? n/t

[mrcheerful]

166. Yes they do I was sitting in a dentists office a few years back and there was a woman

in the waiting room with 5 kids. Another woman asked if they were her grand kids and the woman said no she was a foster parent, that she was getting at the time $1,500 a child each month which helped her be able to own a new car every year and freed up money from her husbands GM job so when hubby retired they could have a nice nest egg saved up. Which got me to thinking about the RW talking point about food stamps and steaks as well as the new car thing, foster parents also receive food stamps on top of the cash.

[mzteris]

178. that's 50 a day -

not $400!!

Feed, clothe, shelter, water, utilities, transportation, school supplies, extra-curricular activities, toiletries, miscellaneous fees and spending - it really doesn't go that far per child.


It's true that some people make a "job" out of being a foster. There are terrible people out there who are fosters for all the wrong reasons. Hopefully the grossly-over-worked Social workers can weed them out. But frankly, if they're doing an adequate job of providing a safe, clean environment - then SServices isn't going to look too hard at the motivation of the people doing the care-taking.

All the more reason for good people to sign up to be foster parents. It's a hard and mostly thankless job. There's a mind-numbing amount of bs and red-tape and ridiculous regulations and rules. There are children so damaged that you cry every single day for them. There are children so damaged that you're relieved when they leave because it's been so hard on everyone else in the house. (and then feel guilty about feeling relieved). You spend the rest of your life wondering what happened to that child you loved and cared for and you will probably never know.

Foster parents *may* get food stamps or WIC vouchers depending on the circumstances of the child(ren). If the kid's parents qualify, then the foster qualifies. And believe me, while they come in handy - what you're allowed to buy on them is pretty ridiculous, too.

Yeah - I got the "look" from people when I used FS or vouchers and went out and got into my new van. Of course being in the South - I got plenty of "looks" for all those LBK's (litle black kids) and I was white. :nuke: I hate racist assholes. Especially the religious ones who looked at me with disgust when they thought they were "my kids" - and "god blessed me" when they found out they were fosters.

[mrcheerful]

181. Nope since Michigan enacted child care licensing of all people who take care of

children foster parents are required to be licensed so here is what the Michigan DHS says on paying non family foster parents.

Licensed DHS or private agency foster home (1 - 4 children) or foster family group home (5 - 6 children) - Foster care payments are based on the age of the child and any special services provided to the child.

# Residential child caring institution (non-profit) - Foster care payments range from $130 to $400 per day.

http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5452_7117_7658-14898--,00.html

[Gormy Cuss]

186. I think you're misinterpreting the pay scale, That $130-$400/day is for institutions.

Note this description of types of foster care placements:

Children in foster care may live with relatives, a licensed foster family, or a family who plans to adopt. Foster care, at times, can also include emergency shelter homes, child care institutions or residential care.

The rate on the page you link is for residential care institutions. The rates for family foster care is more on the order of $400-$600 per month.(see linked document at the bottom of your link)

[mzteris]

200. You misread

that is for a RESIDENTIAL treatment foster home - not a regular foster home..

# Licensed DHS or private agency foster home (1 - 4 children) or foster family group home (5 - 6 children) - Foster care payments are based on the age of the child and any special services provided to the child.

# Residential child caring institution (non-profit) - Foster care payments range from $130 to $400 per day.

A Residential treatment center is for kids with other "special needs" - mental health, physical challenges, mentally challenged, other illness that "prevents" them from being kept in a regular foster home.

[RaleighNCDUer]

179. Perhaps you should re-read that:

"Residential child caring institution (non-profit) - Foster care payments range from $130 to $400 per day."

That is a staffed institution, and out of that $130 - $400 per day comes staff salaries, as well as ordinary and extra-ordinary child care expenses. It does NOT refer to the family or group-home fosters, who are listed separately.

It doesn't specify how much, or even what the range is, in those circumstances, but I'd be surprised if it amounted to more than $1500/mo., or $50/day, and that amount is dependent on the age of the kids and any special needs they may have.

In any case, if the state will only cover clothing purchases from 'approved vendors' throught their 'gift cards' (let's indoctrinate the kids to using credit cards before they get out in the real world) the only new clothes they will get will be at the whim, mercy, or generosity of the fosters the kids got. If a portion of the payment/day was peviously dedicated toward clothing purchases, now, with the use of the cards, the general payment to the foster will, presumably, be reduced in kind, making it even more difficult for them to buy new clothes for the kids.

And that sucks.

[mrcheerful]

185. No what you don't get is Michigan passed a law that requires all foster parents be

licensed, so a persons home is a residential institute. I once rented a house from a registered sex offender who couldn't go on his property because the rental house next to his was a registered foster care institute, I was like wtf, that was how the state labeled foster parents homes. BTW, I was kinda pissed off because the guy never told me that he was on parole or he was a convict when I signed the lease but he had to give me back the damage deposit when I broke the lease because I had a 13 year old living with me and SO, his parole agent made us move.

[RaleighNCDUer]

191. I am certain you are misinterpreting that - just check it on your calculator.

A foster family with 4 kids at $130/day would be $15,600/month income. There are NO foster families making that kind of money. There are, however, licensed facilities (not merely licensed fosters) with 20-50 kids, full time staff of 12, institutional cooking facilities, on-call medical personnel, etc. Those are the ones getting that amount, because they are paying salaries, utilities, transportation (they have their own vans driven by CDL licensed employees) - it's a whole nother critter than a typical 'residential group home' - much closer to a state orphanage.

Seriously, if fosters really made that kind of money this whole discussion would be moot.

[Moosepoop]

194. You are wrong.

The rates you got from the state website are, as was pointed out to you, for institutional care.
If you had searched further on the same site, you would have found the rates for non-institutional care (i.e. Foster Family Care).

Here are the rates for Foster Family Care in Michigan:

Age 00-12: $14.24 per day = $199.38 bi-weekly (+ $107.00 bi-annually for clothing)
Age 13-18 $17.59 per day = $246.26 bi-weekly (+ $122.00 bi-annually for clothing)

http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/fom/905-3.pdf

[RaleighNCDUer]

145. This is not about the frugality of shopping thrift.

It is about the state mandate forcing fosters to shop thrift. The only way this is enforceable is if there is a clothing allowance to foster parents from the state, and the state refusing to re-imburse for clothing UNLESS shown a receipt from a thrift store.

I wonder - are band uniforms, cheerleader outfits, etc., covered by that clothing allowance? What about dance shoes, track shoes? Prom dresses? Going to find those things at Salvation Army?

Not to mention that fosters are already 'outsiders'. While an old fart like me can get away with wearing the same shit I did ten years ago, if a kid shows up at school in 2012 wearing 2005 clothes, s/he will be instantly catagorized - the last time a HS sophomore wore that, the current wearer was in grade school. I might not notice, and very possibly the foster parents might not notice, but the kids do. It's announcing to the world "I am a second class citizen".

[WatsonT]

149. I think you need to reread the article

They're talking about giving gift cards that can only be used at certain places.

It's easily enforceable as they are gift cards and it doesn't ban them from ever owning new clothes, it merely says the state won't pay for it.

People have taken "we won't pay for it" to "you are banned from having".

We don't currently pay to send them to Justin Beiber concerts, fair to say orphans are banned from attending by state law?

[RaleighNCDUer]

170. It think it is YOU that doesn't get it.

For a great many of these kids, if the state doesn't pay for it, they won't get it.

They are fosters, fer gawds sake. They won't be getting new jackets from Grma & Grpa. The only clothes they get will be those they receive from the state through their foster parents. And while most foster parents may genuinely care, that doesn't mean they have the wherewithal to spend their own money on the kids.

This is a restriction which, for many of them, IS an effectual ban.

And, how does this affect kids who live in the boonies, where the nearest Goodwill is an hour and a half drive, but (the evil empire) WalMart is just down the road?

And, even if there is a thrift in town, imagine the humiliation of a girl, in a one-school town, wearing a dress that a kid recognizes as his big sister's that they took to the thrift a couple months ago. It makes no difference how good the quality might be - it is a cast off, and the person who cast it off may be right around the corner.

Do you really not remember the emotional rollercoaster of being 15?

[mrcheerful]

173. I think you replied to the wrong poster I am against the ideal totally

Nope you didn't I am just getting confused who wrote what where

[RaleighNCDUer]

193. It is a bit jumbled and confused - we totally agree that the idea is wrong;

my only contention with you is your interpretation of how much fosters receive.

[mrcheerful]

198. Ok I see where I went wrong I didn't see the calculator page on what DHS pays

what also confused me is I know of no institute in michigan that houses 50 or 60 kids. Outside of the big Cities like Detroit most counties couldn't build a facility large enough to house that many kids. I know in my county there are 5 or 6 families that only provide for foster kids for the first week before the kids are sent to other homes that do long term care.

[WatsonT]

207. Again, reread the article

they are not being banned from having new clothes.

Saying the state will not pay for it is not the same as saying they are banned from having it.

Consider:

Foster kid: can I have a free puppy?
Senator: uh . . . no. You can get one if you want but we're not going to give you one for free, that's not our job.

Headline: State Senator McDouchebag outlines proposal to ban orphans from having puppies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Horrified citizens respond to Senators hateful anti-orphan anti-puppy platform.



And yes, at 15 I was wearing handmedowns. New clothes were something you maybe got for Christmas that that was it (other than underwear and socks thankfully). I somehow survived.

I pointed this out before but here goes again: 2nd hand purchases benefit the local community. New purchases benefit walmart, sweatshops, and corporations.

Decent people should be shopping at 2nd hand stores; better for the wallet, the local economy, and the environment.

But I suppose we can keep wearing clothes then tossing them out when they get dirty. We'll always be rich enough to do so and there are always more sweatshop kids. Heaven forbid any sort of movement start wherein crass materialism isn't priority number 1.

[WatsonT]

143. What's wrong with being frugal?

Is it preferable to wear clothes once then toss them out?

Why are we fighting over brand new sweatshop jeans or older sweatshop jeans for a tenth the cost?

We are getting spoiled as a nation when people flip out over children not getting designer clothes.

I was dressed primarily in handmedowns and shop largely at goodwill for "new" clothes.

I think I turned out ok.

[mrcheerful]

146. Ever here of a little word called choice? What this is about is the Government telling

foster kids they don't have a right to have new clothes. Nothing more nothing less then that, because you got taken from your parents you can't have new clothes you have to be dressed in cast off clothes. If you don't think that is a problem then your blind, I can't believe liberals are not having an issue with this.

[WatsonT]

147. No it isn't

I think you misread.

It's saying what they may do with money given to them by the state. If they get a job and earn a few bucks, or get a 20 for their birthday or whatever they can spend it as they please.

We don't allow people to use food stamps for tobacco products, this is the same sort of thing. Not a ban, just dictating how federal and state funds may be used. We do it all the time.

[mrcheerful]

155. So now you want government telling people what they can and can not buy just because the state

provides for them. Can't get anymore right wing then that. Food stamps only regulate that they are used for food not what type of food people choose to buy with food stamps. So apples vs oranges.

[WatsonT]

160. Again

not saying they cannot buy certain things. Just that they can't do it with government money.

Food stamps regulate what you may eat with government funds, not what you may eat period.

Are you understanding the distinction?

And yes, I do think that at this time we could all A) stand to be more frugal and B) worry about more important things than assuring that our orphans have the finest designer clothes money can buy.

I'd much rather state funds go back in to the local community either directly through second hand stores or for Goodwill and the like through charity then end up in Calvin Kleins bank account.

Consider what you're arguing: we should spend more state money at a time of record deficits on non-essential luxury items produced by foreign sweat shop labor and benefiting multi-billion dollar companies (rather than helping local communities) in order to feed our societies need for disposable consumer goods.


And you call me rightwing? The overpriced clothing industry and walmart thank you for your support.

[mzteris]

161. and what about the 10 yr olds

should they get a job, too?

The "stigma" of being a foster child is bad enough - maybe we should just brand them - "losers", huh?

[WatsonT]

164. Again

this is not a ban on new clothes for them.

You are getting that right?

[mrcheerful]

167. What part of this are you missing right from the story

"Under a new budget proposal from State Sen. Bruce Casswell, children in the state’s foster care system would be allowed to purchase clothing only in used clothing stores."

Seems rather clear to me that your adding things to what this guy's goal is. No where in the article does it say anything about what if's like a $20 gift and where it can be spent. All it says is foster kids can't have no new clothes, that foster kids must buy all of their clothes from second hand stores.

[WatsonT]

202. Again, reread the article

they are talking about issuing gift cards that can only be used at second hand stores, not a ban on the kids ever having anything new. Such a ban would be illegal and is not being discussed here.

The foster parents may purchase whatever they want for the kids with their own money. The kids if they were to come across some money could buy whatever they want. They are just only going to be reimbursed for used clothes.

[mzteris]

180. I get that he's telling them

that the State of MI believes they are 2nd class and not deserving of the state's money to buy something new.

You are getting that, right?

[mrcheerful]

189. Yep and more lol

I find it amazing that people on DU actually support it, yet know very little about foster care in Michigan. A few years ago MI passed a law requiring anyone taking care of children to be licensed care givers. So under Michigan law foster parents homes are called residential institutes as long as the foster parents are not related to the children.

[WatsonT]

203. Jesus Christ, is reading comprehension verboten around here?

Shopping at a second hand store does not make one 2nd class.

I shop there, as do a great many other people.

It's like complaining that soup lines only give out generic soup rather than Campbells. It's the same stuff, just cheaper.

[mzteris]

209. BEING MADE TO SHOP

at a 2nd hand store DOES intimate that one is "2nd class".

[WatsonT]

211. NOT BEING MADE TO SHOP

anywhere.

How are you still not getting this? It's so effin simple. Why are people having such trouble with this?

Here's a giftcard to McDonalds. Now I have forced you to only eat there! Ahahahaha! You will soon die of heart disease.

[mzteris]

212. You have no idea what you're talking about

when a child comes into the foster system, there is a voucher given to purchase them clothes because they generally have only the clothes on their backs.

So - I say I have three kids - 6, 4, and 2 - who come into my care on a Tuesday afternoon - I have one day to get them some clothes so they can go to school the next day wearing something that is clean, fits, and not full of holes.

I have a voucher to do this. Usually to Walmart or Target,etc - which is challenging enough. I can only use the voucher at ONE STORE.

Are you telling me I can only go to the gd salvation fricking army to buy clothes for these kids?

Shoes, socks, underwear, coats, jackets, pants, shirts??

What if they're a special size? or hard to fit size?

have yhou ever tried to buy clothes for boys in that age range in a thrift shop?

Do you know how challenging it is to find SOME clothes? much less an entire wardrobe for three boys?

You honestly have no clue.

NONE AT ALL.

I'm having a problem with this because it is in effect saying - YOU"RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR NEW CLOTHES YOU LOSER!!

Yeah - I can go buy them NEW clothes with my money - which I did! - but three full wardrobes at one time?? I don't think so. Not doable.

[Missy Vixen]

216. Thank you for making the point

My husband is a former foster child. His sisters spent most of their lives in the system as well.

Let's just say we know a little about what happens in foster care; our aunt worked for many years placing children in foster homes as an employee of Casey, which is owned by the family that owns UPS.

I appreciate your comments.

[WatsonT]

220. So you do realize no one is being forced to shop at second hand stores

and this isn't a ban on new clothes for foster children?

Excellent. It finally sunk in.

"I'm having a problem with this because it is in effect saying - YOU"RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR NEW CLOTHES YOU LOSER!!"

Heh, yeah that's exactly what it is. :eyes:

Just like the government is saying I'm worthless because it won't be me a new porsche and I can't afford one myself. I have to drive some crappy used car, like a 2nd class citizen.

Take a step back and think rationally for a moment about what is being discussed here: fashion.

We have people comparing this to the holocaust (shave their heads and tattoo numbers on their arms) or industrial revolution era Britain (workhouses). In reality these kids will not be murdered, or starved to death, or forced to dress in rags. They will simply not have this seasons designer outfits from Calvin Klein or whatever designer is in right now.

That is what is driving people to claim this is like the holocaust.

The greed and shortsightedness of people here is amazing. "OMG if I don't have the newest clothes I will just DIE!"

Yes, some people do wear second hand clothes and live to tell the tale. You're conversing with one now.

[mzteris]

236. The State is absolutely telling them

they aren't "good enough for new clothes".

You try outfitting three children in everything they need from a second hand store in one trip. Can't be done.

You try outfitting three children in everything they need at a "new store" paying out of your own pocket! Go ahead. You sound rich enough to do that. And most foster parents aren't.

Look - substitute "food" for "clothes". So the government says you can ONLY BUY DAY LEFTOVERS with the money we give you. Of course you can buy "new food" with your own money - and you will, of course - when you can afford it. But in the meantime you cn ONLY HAVE whatever the leftover place has to offer. Sometimes it may be good and you may even like it. Sometimes hey yeah it's leftover cause no one else wanted it cause it was crap -= but that's okay cause you're a foster and you should just be thankful for whatever crap we give ya!

You really do not comprehend this issue and you're either being very obtuse or just argumentative over a point that isn't the point of this "argument at all".

Of course I CAN buy new - and have - you keep missing that part.

The POINT IS - it is the government telling them they are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to buy New for.

I wear second hand. So do my children. I bought all of my oldest sons's Christmas presents at the 2nd hand stores because he prefers it.


The point is that foster children have gotten the short end of the stick already. WTF is wrong with you that you can't let them have a little something nice. How would you feel if you were told you weren't good enough to to be allowed shop at the new store on the government's dime (the government being their new "parent"). Which IS the message that is being sent.

I can't believe you don't understand this. You just refuse to concede the point because then you'd "lose" a !gasp! internet argument!! OMG. The horrors!

[WatsonT]

225. I take it that you've never lowered yourself to entering a second hand store

They have basically everything you get at walmart (guess where walmart purchases end up in a year).

And here's the kicker: especially for children.

Children do this thing, it's called growing. I know I know, sounds crazy right? But it's true. Measure them from one year to the next and you will see a difference.


And this means that clothes you buy them today won't necessarily fit them in a month or year. Meaning kids go through a lot of clothes that are still perfectly functional but no longer fit.

And where do those clothes go?

Well to someone who recoils in horror at the thought of being near a 2nd hand store they go in the trash (USA!USA!USA!)

But to others they get donated and then are purchased by people with children but not a lot of money.

So there is a wide selection of relatively new childrens clothes at most second hand stores.

And a lot of those (goodwill, salvation army) are charitable. Meaning this money will be further cycled back in to that community to help the poorer residents.


As opposed to walmart where it goes to the CEOs and China.

But yes, it's far more important to have this years hot label than to brush elbows with the great unwashed masses and waste your money within your own community.

[mzteris]

237. I take it you've not actually read my posts...

I've stated repeatedly that I can and do shop second hand for myself and my own children now.


I recoil in horror at foster children being told they are NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR NEW CLOTHES AT THE HANDS OF THEIR NEW "PARENTS". Wtf kind of message is that?

It's not the "hot label" when you're shopping at Walmart or Target which is where vouchers are usually for. It's having a wide range of sizes and styles and clothing items with which to outfit a child with everything they need in one gd visit.

Socks shoes underwear - you try finding good "used" items for children in those departments at the 2nd hand store that fit.

Have a child that's hard to fit? Good luck.

Have three children at one gd time you need to outfit? good freaking luck with that.

The stigma of being a foster child is bad enough. The trauma of being ripped from your home is horrific enough. Now you want to tell them they aren't good enough to have a new gd pair of shoes to go to school in?

Some liberal you are.

[WatsonT]

239. Please point out the section of this proposal

that bars foster parents from buying new clothes for their kids.

I'll be here, take your time.

[Thor_MN]

241. There is none. Nothing prevents the foster parents from purchasing gold and diamond jewlery for them

either, except reality.

The proposal turns State aid for clothing into "shop at a second hand store or lose out." I'm assuming that most foster parents are like the rest of us and don't have tons of money to spare. There is a reason that the state gives the aid, making it second hand only can confer second hand status to the children who receive it.


These kids have had a rough enough childhood, do we really need to send a message that can imply they are not good enough to deserve new clothes?

To the many who have been posting on the merits of thrift stores, good for you. Recycle/reuse is good for the planet.

However to those that continue on about how one should feel about shopping thrift stores - I find it crass to tell someone how they should feel. Presuming that your emotions are more correct or normal that others is just plain rude. Many have pointed out that once you are out of the store, no one can tell if you bought the clothes new or used. That's plain wrong. The person wearing the clothes knows where they were purchased and how they fell about the clothes is more important than what anyone else thinks about them.

[WatsonT]

242. So state law bans foster kids from having jewelry?

That's so mean! Why would they do that?

"However to those that continue on about how one should feel about shopping thrift stores - I find it crass to tell someone how they should feel"

Right, so those folks telling these kids they should feel worthless and 2nd class because of this are crass?

"Presuming that your emotions are more correct or normal that others is just plain rude."

I've been discussing facts, not emotions.

"Many have pointed out that once you are out of the store, no one can tell if you bought the clothes new or used. That's plain wrong. "

So your emotions tell you that there is a difference and you presume your emotions are more correct or normal than others?

There's a lot of support for Walmart and outright disgust for charity and locally owned small businesses.

Apparently not being able to shop at Walmart is like the holocaust (no seriously, someone made the comparison). I see we've been well indoctrinated.

[Thor_MN]

249. Dang, reading comprehension IS low around here...

Part of what I wrote was not directed to you, hence the "To those" at the start of the paragraphs. You might also note that I said that forcing "second hand only or lose it" >>>CAN<<< confer second status. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should feel, but some around here think that the feelings of foster children are their's to dictate.

You persist in your false equivalency of saying that "no one prevents foster parents from buying" nonsense. Sounds kind of like what a lot of my Te-bagger co-workers sound like. Endless repetition of the same discredited points. Limited resources mean that people can not afford to throw away aid that is given to them.

If we are going to go this route, let's go whole hog!! Tell corporations that are getting huge tax incentives that they can only use that money to hire, and only within in the US with no H1b visas. Let's tell people taking tax write offs where they can spend the money. Tax deductions for your kids? Salvation Army gift cards only. Heating assistance? Renewable energy only.

I have yet to see one person advocate for your straw man argument of shopping at Wal-Mart, which is ridiculous at heart. If one were arguing to have people spend money at Wal-Mart why not just make the cards for Wal-Mart only? People are arguing against this legislation because it removes peoples choice of where to purchase clothing.

The only person who has used the word holocaust in this entire thread is one person, who has said it multiple times, namely, one WatsonT.

[WatsonT]

252. Ok lets take this apart

"You persist in your false equivalency of saying that "no one prevents foster parents from buying" nonsense. Sounds kind of like what a lot of my Te-bagger co-workers sound like."

Just like Hitler too! I mean as long as you're taking that route.

"Limited resources mean that people can not afford to throw away aid that is given to them."

And I totally suggested they should throw away these cars and live naked under a bridge, so this comment of yours makes sense!

"If we are going to go this route, let's go whole hog!! Tell corporations that are getting huge tax incentives that they can only use that money to hire, and only within in the US with no H1b visas. Let's tell people taking tax write offs where they can spend the money. Tax deductions for your kids? Salvation Army gift cards only. Heating assistance? Renewable energy only."

We do limit what people can take tax deductions for. We don't just put a line on there that says "meh, take off whatever you want for whatever reason." It's very specific. So in that way we are regulating how people spend their money. And I think we should have restrictions on how companies may spend federal money they are given, you don't?

"I have yet to see one person advocate for your straw man argument of shopping at Wal-Mart, which is ridiculous at heart. If one were arguing to have people spend money at Wal-Mart why not just make the cards for Wal-Mart only? People are arguing against this legislation because it removes peoples choice of where to purchase clothing."

Really? Because so far I remember at least four conversations that start with the premise of "well how can I be expected to clothe anyone if I can't shop at walmart?"

Seriously do a page search for walmart. You will find quite a few people bringing it up.


"The only person who has used the word holocaust in this entire thread is one person, who has said it multiple times, namely, one WatsonT."

Ah yes because if you say "shave their heads and tattoo a number of their arm" that has so many other meanings.

[Thor_MN]

258. Wow, just wow.

Who mentioned Hitler, well, besides you?

Actually, you have advocated that people do not use this state aid if they don't bow to your desire to force them into second hand clothes. The rest of that bit is too ridiculous to even comment.

We do not limit how people can spend the money deducted from their taxes. If one reduces their total tax bill by $500 by deductions for education expenses, there are absolutely no conditions of how that $500 can be spent. So let's try your method and give them a giftcard that must be spent of used textbooks. Try reading a bit more slowly and try not to force your notions into others words, then you might comprehend the difference between a tax deduction (regulated) and the money that their taxes are reduced by (completely unregulated, but in your view, it should be returned as a thrift shop gift card.)

Tell you what. YOU do a page search and cite some examples (post number will suffice) of someone actually advocating for shopping at WalMart? Other than one person saying that WalMart can have cheaper prices than thrift stores, I'm not seeing much to support your assertion that people are supporting shopping at WalMart. You claim there are at least four, you do the leg work and provide the post numbers.

Please provide support for your multiple assertions that "people are comparing this to the Holocaust". One person used your trademarked move of taking something to a ridiculous extreme (in my opinion, correctly, instead of just pulling random crap out of the air) and you are repeatedly stating that people (multiple persons) are actually equating this bill with the holocaust.

[WatsonT]

260. Let's see:

"Actually, you have advocated that people do not use this state aid if they don't bow to your desire to force them into second hand clothes."

Actually that's a lie. You are lying.

"We do not limit how people can spend the money deducted from their taxes."

No but we limit how they get those deductions, do you disagree with this obvious fact? Also there is a difference between giving someone money and taxing them less. Surely you are capable of seeing how they are different?


And do you acknowledge now that someone did reference the holocaust? Good, that's a big step from 'no one ever mentioned it'. I'm proud of this forward movement you're making.

And on a five second search that was apparently a bit much for you: posts 113, 142, 26, and 132 all mentioned the benefits of being able to shop at walmart by name.

Good corporate drone: support the transfer of state and federal funds to the walton family, they appreciate it. May even cut you a check if you protest strongly enough for them.

[Thor_MN]

262. Maybe some prescription eye wear is in order?

You have stated multiple times that if they do not want to buy second hand clothes, they can use their own money. If they do not want to accede to your desire to see them in second hand clothes, and can't use the aid they currently get in any other way, how does one avoid not using that aid? Seems pretty clear to me that you want them to either be in second hand clothes or not be able to use the funds that they currently get.

I never said a word about how one obtains deductions, that was your attempted distraction. If my income tax bill, based on my wages comes to say $20,000, but due to meeting certain requirements (your deductions) my bill is reduced to $18,000, how is that NOT being given money. It's the same net effect to my finances and any posturing otherwise is semantics that the people on that other board like to use.

I acknowledge that 1 (one, singular, not plural) PERSON made a sarcastic comment carrying things to the extreme of shaved heads and tattoos, You then made multiple claims that PEOPLE (plural, meaning more than one) were comparing this bill to the Holocaust. Do you acknowledge that you were repeatedly, blatantly overstating Holocaust claims?


Perhaps you should have taken more than 5 seconds, because you came up with a total whiff, one person saying multiple stores can be cheaper than thrift stores, one person saying Walmart can be cheaper than Thrift Stores and one person saying that underwear should not be bought at thrift stores. Quite a bit short of your mark of 'at least four conversations that start with the premise of "well how can I be expected to clothe anyone if I can't shop at walmart?" '

Post 113. Its barbaric to write this into the law.
No message text.

Post 142. why should they be able to mandate this?
i can go in and get stuff on clearance at walmart, kmart and other places and in fact until my eldest was ten she only had hand me downs, yard sale stuff and clearance stuff. but that should not be a mandated thing. foster parents should be able to make those choices themselves.

Post 26. Often I can get clothing more cheaply at Walmart than at Goodwill.
especially if it's a clearance sale

132. No, I don't. But I have nieces and a nephew. And I'm one of 5 siblings...

...(Lots of stuff extolling the virtues of thrift stores, the only relevant portion here)...
The one problem I see is underwear and shoes. Underwear has to be new, but that's pretty cheap at WalMart or Target.



And a swing and a total miss. I'm actually quite Anti-corporate. If you bothered to read, you'll note that I've never once advocated that people shop at any particular venue. I've argued for letting them decide where to spend their money. None of my damn business where someone else shops.

[mzteris]

247. Please point out the resources said foster parents

will have to buy entire wardrobes for multiple children in one fell swoop.

I'll be here, take your time.

[WatsonT]

261. As foster parents are often just regular people

rather than propertyless slaves of the state they will have the resources that any parent has.

[LanternWaste]

243. However being compelled by a government agency to shop at one is...

"Shopping at a second hand store does not make one 2nd class."

However being compelled by a government agency to shop at one is...

[mzteris]

248. and that is the point.

that "pos(t)er" refuses to acknowledge this.

[Missy Vixen]

214. You're missing the point

>We are getting spoiled as a nation when people flip out over children not getting designer clothes.<

Nobody said anything about "designer clothes". What they DID say is that it's ridiculous to enforce spending the $79 a year Michigan's foster children get for clothing (look it up; Google is your friend,) in "approved" second hand stores.

Considering the fact that kids come in all shapes and sizes, and seem to outgrow things like a good winter coat, sneakers, UNDERWEAR, etcetera, nobody said anything at all about "designer clothes". What has been said on this thread and elsewhere is that second-hand shopping is tough at best. Those foster parents are doing their best to make ends meet.

In other words, a growing kid is not going to be able to buy a new pair of $20 sneakers from Costco with their clothing allowance. They can't buy a package of new underwear from the local department store. It's more important to force him or her to shop at a second-hand store which may not have the item(s) in question when they are needed, or maybe the kid gets a nice case of athlete's foot from purchasing used shoes...

I'd also like to say that I'm betting there's a member of the senator's family that works for the Salvation Army or a debit card company. It happens every time, doesn't it?

:eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Strange contradiction in the stories

The Michigan Messenger says:

Casswell says the plan will save the state money, though it isn’t clear how much the state spends on clothing for foster children or how much could be saved this way.

But it gets the story from Michigan Radio, which says:

Caswell says the gift card idea wouldn’t save the state any money.

However, I'd say Caswell's "it never did me any harm" routine doesn't really wash. I'd say "look what a bitter, twisted person can be produced if you make them feel like a second class citizen".

[madrchsod]

21. otherwise his story about his dad is bullshit....

you can buy a lot of quality clothing at many of these stores. my local salvation and good will sells quality for 25-50% on the dollar.

the shop i go to a couple of times a week sells clothing for around 10% used-25% new on the dollar. hell plato`s closet sells quality name brand used clothing for around 25-50% off depending on the brand and condition.

[Zenlitened]

81. Ding!

However, I'd say Caswell's "it never did me any harm" routine doesn't really wash. I'd say "look what a bitter, twisted person can be produced if you make them feel like a second class citizen".

:thumbsup:

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. Amen. He's a sick and twisted asshole.

[mzteris]

163. if the voucher amount is the same

it wouldn't save the state any money. The card would just "go further" (MAYBE!!) at a 2nd hand store. Though not always.

The PROBLEM IS RELEGATING THEM TO 2nd CLASS STATUS!!

[corpseratemedia]

7. It's not enough that they're foster children, gotta kick 'em in the stomach to remind them of

their fragile status.

"IIII didn't have anything..therefore they, "not fully children," should have even less!!" (sarcasm)




The land of garbage-mentality, making hard-core enemies worldwide with this attitude.

[Honeycombe8]

109. I resent your attitude that poor people who shop at thrift stores are somehow "less" than others.

I don't understand that attitude.

Buying at thrift stores is a GOOD thing...esp for kids' clothing. They grow out of clothes so fast, that many items are in very good shape, and very useable and wearable. There's no shame in buying clothes there, and no reason not to, even if you can afford to buy new.

Try it. You'll never view the "new" prices in dept stores in the same way.

I have some Ralph Lauren clothes that I got at a thrift store. My favorite jacket during my teen years was a navy pea coat...a REAL one...that I'd gotten at the Salvation Army store. (You can't even FIND one these days that's 100% wool, which is what mine was.) My high school prom dress came free from a neighbor...it was higher quality than my mom would've paid for. And it was beautiful (altho not a color I would've chosen).

And for people who are poor and HAVE to shop at thrift stores...they are not "less" than anyone else.

[Thor_MN]

134. Honeycombe, I think you are missing a point

You appear to like thrift stores and shop them. Good on you. However, what if someone passed a law that said you (as part of some arbitrary class of person) could only shop at Walmart?

It's not about the shopping destination, it's the forcing someone to shop there.




I'll never understand conservatives, whining about "Nanny state this and nanny state that" and then they go out and want to create laws limiting other people's choices.

[mzteris]

165. exactly! n/t

[iemitsu]

182. buying at thrift stores is a fine thing and i do it all the time.

but legislating that certain unfortunate kids will only be allowed to spend support money at used clothing stores is appalling.
the money that foster parents are given by the state is not all spent on "things" for the foster child any more than child support monies are all spent directly on the children who determine the support.
the foster children i work with (high school aged) wear the same thing every day, have jobs, and struggle with keeping up with homework. they are on their own the day they turn 18.
no one here is suggesting that foster kids should dress like paris hilton.

[Angry Dragon]

8. With second hand clothes, rush's dumpster diving and

teaching to the test these children should be all set to live in the new Repressive Party World








Maybe he should have told his dad to get off his lazy ass and pull himself by his bootstraps and made something of himself so his son would not have to grow up to be a big piece of feces

[freshwest]

35. Thank you. They're still using the same tactics.

[Heidi]

9. Recommended. Let's just set foster kids up to be further ostracized by the "haves."

It's not like we have a bullying problem already. :sarcasm:

[arcane1]

10. There just HAS TO be a brother-in-law in this somewhere...

who either works for the second-hand stores, or for the gift card company. Assholism like this always has a brother-in-law who profits from it.

Note: brother-in-law is meant as a generic term for "well-connected person" :)

[aquart]

20. A gift card to the Salvation Army?

Has he discussed this with the Salvation Army?

[aquart]

23. One caveat.

This asshole IS an asshole. HOWEVER, the Salvation Army is my favorite store. I'll be damned if my limited budget will go for new polyester when I can buy used cashmere for less. I LIKE cashmere.

[freshwest]

38. Same thought here. Or pushing religion.

[Deep13]

11. In case they don't know that they're poor.

Morons.

[femrap]

12. Hell, just allow

Federal-paid-for Abortions and these selfish sons-of-short dicks won't have to worry about this.

Fooking hypocrites.

[HereSince1628]

13. I'd LOVE to punch this asshole in the face!

I grew up inside of someonelse's clothes. I never met him but I know his name = John C. Hanley.

Every shirt I had, my pants...yeah name in the collar, but my football pads and football pants were marked with his name in places where it showed. It was embarrassing to the point of humiliation.

I was always asked if my mother was divorced and I had my name changed. Truth is my grandmother was the Hanley's maid...

God DAMN you Bruce Caldwell you have no idea what you are doing to innocent, vulnerable children.

[lunatica]

17. I wish you could punch him in the face too

[TK421]

87. mandatory vasectomy n/t

edited to add: yeah, I fucking DID say that

[Blasphemer]

14. What absurdity

These politicos have made it such that "Made in China" kids clothing is pretty cheap so it hardly seems necessary to force foster parents to go to Goodwill or the Salvation Army. Some parents are frugal and whether their own children or foster children, they will frequent those places. Some are not and will buy clothes at high end stores. It should be left up to the parents. They need to be more concerned about the socioeconomic conditions that lead to foster parenting and about ensuring that those children in care are well cared for both physically and emotionally.

[Hannah Bell]

15. wtf?

there has been a change in the second-hand business over the last 5-10 years, at least in my area. it used to be that there were a few moderate-sized shops run by the majors (goodwill, salvation army), a couple of smaller ones run by local charities, and a handful of independent for-profit shops.

now there's one mega-store (goodwill), a handful of medium-sized ones run by not-so-local charities (e.g. two medical businesses tied to national capital, habitat for humanity salvage business, etc.), & two small for-profit local businesses. Plus a couple of independents that recycled scrap metal are gone replaced by "recyling center" that's also the garbage collection service that's also national corporation.

iow, big capital is squeezing out local capital even in the second-hand/recycling business.

And a lot of the labor in all of these is volunteer or subsidized by government, i.e. goodwill gets subsidy for "training" their workers, the others get subsidized workers from programs that supposedly "re-train" displaced/older workers -- or americorp labor -- temporary, unbenefited, & the "training" for the most part = the kind of work that high school students or grads used to do -- general labor, cashiering.

all in the name of "good works".

also now if you sell to the big recycler the government has a record of it -- you must give name/phone etc. was not the case a year ago.

squeezing out local small business, local casual labor, local marginal means of survival.

[madrchsod]

18. plato`s closet ?....

actually most second hand stores have better or the same stuff as major box stores. the last trip to the salvation army my daughter and i picked up a lot of new clothes and name brand stuff. i bought a new pair of jeans three yrs ago and that`s it.
if there`s a plato`s closet near you they have the best clothes at the best price.

i know it`s a shitty thing to do kids that want something new but ya know there`s always some way around the system....

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. The 'way around the system' is to make the foster parents spend

their own money on kids clothes are regular stores, while spending the 'gift card' buying clothes for themselves at the 2nd hand store. It matters much less to a 40yr old if they are wearing clothes 5-10 years out of date.

[SoCalNative]

19. Are there nor prisons?

Are there no workhouses?

[Turbineguy]

22. You may

eat shit when ready, Casswell

[Webster Green]

24. These are the ones who rage against "nanny government", right?

Yes, I thought so. :crazy:

[shellgame26]

25. Wtf???

[eShirl]

26. Often I can get clothing more cheaply at Walmart than at Goodwill.

especially if it's a clearance sale

[zogofzorkon]

29. It really isn't about the price. Its about not being worthy of anything new.

[rurallib]

33. I was wondering when someone would say this.

I am surprised there isn't a addendum that all food must be from what restaurants throw out.
It is about making these kids know that they are not real humans.

[theHandpuppet]

96. Bingo!

Right to the point.

[highplainsdem]

27. They got his name wrong -- it's Caswell. Wikipedia link -- he's a retired teacher (!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Caswell

And he sounds like a psychopath who secretly hates kids. Well, not so secretly any more...

[Dappleganger]

28. What, are there no potato sacks?

BTW, we shop 2nd hand quite often but honestly their prices can be more expensive than many big-box clearance racks.

[sinkingfeeling]

30. Let me guess, elected in 2010, Republican, and self-claimed Christian.

[freshwest]

39. +1000

[HankyDubs]

44. I'll add to that

betcha he is also, pro-life...believes abortion is murder and wants to protect babies...until they are out of the womb.

[My Good Babushka]

31. There is nothing wrong with second hand clothes but

kids wear clothes pretty hard. You can't always find "like new" clothes in a child's size. The Goodwill in our area rarely has clothes that comply with my son's school's dress code AND fit him properly. This is just added humiliation for children who will have to wear ill-fitting, uncomfortable clothes on top of everything else.

[Sivafae]

49. and used clothes are great for normal-sized kids. Others...notsomuch eom

[stockholmer]

32. state imposed granny-thrift chic for 8 year olds, can't wait to read the fashion blogs!

:sarcasm:

[BR_Parkway]

34. Retired teacher, college courtesy of the taxpayer - typical "I've got mine, fuck

you" Republican.

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/senators/about.asp?District=16

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. Then he'll privatize-profitize-purchase those second hand stores

What an aberration of nature he is.

[sdfernando]

37. This is NUTS!!!

What about underware? I would NEVER EVER buy used undergarments. Maybe Mr. Casswell is a bit into that kinky stuff?? Geez!!!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

53. Do they sell that?

I buy some clothes at Salvation Army, but I don't think I've seen underwear or socks. Shirts, slacks, even some ties and sportcoats, but not underwear. I haven't bought shoes there, although they are available.

Forcing people to buy at Salvation Army is just demeaning. If I had to shop there, I'd be pissed.

[pnwmom]

40. This guy is evil. Let him buy all HIS clothes second-hand

just like his dad.

It's hard enough to enroll good foster parents, and it's hard enough being a foster child. What a monster.

[Odin2005]

41. Translantion: "foster kids deserved to be teased by their peers".

FUCK THAT! This is state-imposed classism.

[Sabriel]

42. Hey, they should only eat expired food, too!

So the can's a little bulged and the meat's a little green on the edges...so what?

It's good enough for foster kids!

[jwirr]

43. I have mixed feelings about this. It disturbs me that the probable

intention here is that poor children should not have the best like his children.

However, I once worked in shelter for troubled teens. Most of them were from poor homes or would be poor themselves most of their lives. They were given a clothing allowance and our boss would send them to the most exclusive stores in town. Expensive. The allowance did not cover near what they needed and I was furious. I was poor myself. We were teaching girls that they had to have the best even when we knew they could not afford it. I wanted to show them how to budget their money and learn to live on it. How to get the most for it. So while I think it does not have to be a charity program it is good to learn that they exist and have good things. One of my best days was the day a young single mother just leaving our facility after having her baby said "I want to shop at Target." She knew what was coming when she walked out that door. She was going to make it.

[Sivafae]

50. I see what you are saying, but it is nice to every once in a while treat yourself to something extra

And I think that is also an important thing to learn. But again it has to do with budgeting.

[wickerwoman]

61. I'm all for learning to be thrifty,

and I've tried to shop in second-hand stores but I've always found the selection in my size to be virtually non-existent. And I'm not even that big or strangely proportioned. I honestly don't think I have ever found something that even vaguely fit in a thrift store. What are the foster kids supposed to do if they're unusually tall, short, fat, thin, etc.?

I could spend four days hitting thrift shops to find a sweater that fits for $10, or I can spend an hour going to a department store and get a sweater that fits for $40. If I spend the three days working instead of shopping, I come out way ahead.

Aren't those the kinds of free market decisions that Republicans are supposed to be all about letting people make for themselves?

[mzteris]

168. vouchers are usually for Target/Walmart

though I'm sure it varies from state.

and then there's the foster "mom" - from whom I received emergency placement of three brothers - 6, 4, 2 - she spent the voucher on her own kid and gave his hand me downs to the other boys. The two year old was wearing clothes two sizes too big. The other two had only a few things that really "FIT" and most of it very shabby. Shoes were so beat up they could hardly count as shoes. She also bought hundreds of dollars of disposable training pants so "she" wouldn't have to buy them out the monthly stipend.

:nuke:

Yes, the horror stories are sometimes true (and there's worse...) But the vast majority of foster paremts I met are NOT like that!



I had to outfit three boys from head to toe and everything in between.

[jwirr]

206. That does happen. Our family took a child that came from another

foster home - with nothing but the clothes on her back. I have no idea what happened to the clothing allowance. Years (1950s) my mother in law had to hand in receipts for things she bought on welfare every month. It seems to me that asking for receipts from the foster family would no be beyond reasonable. If I buy equipment for my daughter on MA I have to provide a receipt. That does not make me angry it just indicates good bookkeeping on the part of the program.

[Nancy Waterman]

46. From the party of small, non-intrusive government

run by total control-freaks!
I could see suggesting this as a way to stretch
your money further, but to mandate it?

[DollyM]

47. good foster parents will go out and buy it out of their own pockets anyway . . .

The montly stipend hardly covered what the kids needed and used. We took many things out of pocket like prom dresses and karate uniforms. I wanted to make sure that not only did our kids look good, I wanted them to look a little better. The way they looked and the clothing they wore had generally been an issue all their lives which made for teasing and angry kids. If we could help them to look good and fit in better, then it was one less thing they had to contend with in life.

[Hubert Flottz]

48. Family Values...

[Love Bug]

51. So, how much will it cost Michigan to implement and enforce this?

I smell a sweet deal for someone here, and it's not the foster kids nor their guardians. This guy is a moron.

[Missy Vixen]

77. I was wondering about the "gift cards"

Most gift cards now have a monthly "convenience fee" attached. In other words, if you don't spend the card in the same month it's activated in, the fees will chip away at the total. I wonder how much of the tiny budget foster kids get in Michigan for clothing/grooming items will end up back in the state's pocket as a result of these "gift cards".

Maybe Senator Caswell has a family member that works for MasterCard or VISA, perhaps?

:eyes:

[kiranon]

52. What next? Food only out of dumpsters? Shame on him. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

103. There is no shame in buying used clothing. Try it. You'll like it.

You have to sift through tons of junk, but the gems are there. Cool, high quality, useful clothing...costing a tiny fraction of what they had cost new.

Kids grow out of clothing so fast, it makes sense to buy used.

Where I come from, it's common for young families to shop garage sales and thrift stores for kids' clothing. It's not considered shameful at all.

Maybe some people who grew up only buying new, or in big cities, find this odd. I don't. It makes sense. It doesn't really matter where you buy something. What matters, if you're like me and many others, is that you get a great deal! And of course, when the foster kid grows out of it, give it away (again) to a charity thrift store, for it to be recycled again.

Recycle, recycle, recycle. It's a learning opportunity for the child, to learn what's important, and about recycling. And if he minds that much, maybe it'll spur him on to get good grades in school, get a higher education, and make $$$ when he grows up, so he can afford to buy new things. In the meantime, just don't tell the other kids you got those great new cool jeans at a thrift store. They'll never know.

[MichiganVote]

55. Oh hell, let's just not given them clothes at all. And while we're at it, screw food and housing too

:eyes:

If anyone has any spare change, suggest that we send this guy stuff for his wardrobe from Goodwill/Salvation Army.

[Shallah Kali]

59. Are there no work houses?

why not set the little free loaders to work for their 2nd hand garments and daily cup of gruel!

:sarcasm:

[MichiganVote]

66. Absolutely! Afterall, look how well "Annie" did!

[Shallah Kali]

72. and oliver twist!

So successesful he inspire a novel and musicals and movies!!!

[frylock]

58. we should start a drive to send used, unwashed underpants to this shitstain

[deerheadgal]

67. How low can Republicans go?

I read stuff like this and wonder if they've hit bottom...but nooooo! They somehow find a way to keep outdoing themselves.

[coalition_unwilling]

112. If I were a smart head of the Democratic National party apparatus, I

would take Caswell's observations and make 2012 election all about them. Just when I start thinking the Dem Party is just like the Repukes, along comes a monster like Caswell and, voila, I go back to leaning Dem :)

[socialshockwave]

69. So....

Because HE had a hard life, other people should too?

....

[valerief]

70. So does Caswell shop for himself and his family at Goodwill now? If not, why not?

Why should taxpayers waste money on new clothes for him?

[Hotler]

73. Fucking asshole. n/t

[6000eliot]

74. Of course, since their poverty and misery is their own damn fault.

How dare they have the nerve to be born without money?

[BrightKnight]

75. That is like something out of a Dickens novel. - n/t

[Snoutport]

78. I'm a teacher and buy a lot of my own clothes at the thrift store...

since I can't afford to shop anywhere but Walmart or Old Navy...at least at the thrift store I can look for better quality stuff.

Foster kids hardly get any money to buy clothes with as it is...so most of them probably do get their clothes from shelters, social workers or thrift stores. So, maybe, if these kids get a gift card they might actually be able to get some clothes. The families sure can't afford it on the small amount they get for being a foster parent. That probably barely covers food and utilities.

[Honeycombe8]

101. Me, too! I love to get a bargain at resale shops! I can afford to buy new...

but I can buy upscale items at a fraction of the cost at resale shops. It takes time to sift through all the trash, but the gems are there, if you look.

Kids grow out of clothing so fast, it doesn't make sense to buy new, unless you get it on a really good sale.

Americans have become so spoiled with buying so many things, and buying new, without recycling, haven't we?

My high school prom dress was given to my mom by a neighbor. It was beautiful. Not my color, but beautiful.

Things I have gotten recently:
A navy blue cord Chico's jacket....like new!
A designer bright violet 3/4 sleeve SILK loose top...I got lots of compliments on it!
Ralph Lauren black 3/4 sleeve lightweight 100% brush cotton top with detail buttons @ neck
Ralph Lauren 3/4 sleeve 100% cashmere sweater with scoop neck! Gorgeous...lots of compliments!

Each of these things cost just a tiny fraction of what they had cost new. They were used, but gently used. These are work clothes. What a deal!

It's hard to find used shoes that are in good shape, though....even for kids.

[adigal]

219. I do, too, but it is by choice, and kids are so sensitive

and insecure. They would hate this. Plus, their parents have done something so they end up in foster care and we have the right to tell them where to shop? I disagree vehemently.

[undeterred]

79. The point is to make them feel like second rate children.

Nice going, asshole.

[Honeycombe8]

102. It's good for kids to understand the value of a dollar, and what recycling is all about.

My prom dress came used from a neighbor, even tho my mother could've afforded to buy me a new dress. I resented it at the time, but I must admit, it was a beautiful dress, higher quality than my mom would've bought. And flattering.

I buy clothes at resale shops, even though I can afford to buy new. I buy new, too. But then, I pay for them myself.

It's good for kids to understand that some things aren't important. What matter is that they get some useful and hopefully cool clothes. They don't have to tell the other kids where they got them. No one knows that some of my work outfits were bought used, unless I choose to tell people (I usu. do...I'm proud of my bargain-finding skills).

This isn't a big deal. Americans have become so spoiled with buying new things all the time, w/o regard to cost or need. I'd rather the foster parents save up for electronics, and use the govt's $ to buy used clothing. The used clothing will probably be higher quality than what the foster parents could buy new, anyway.

I gave away a lot of clothes to charity last year. I gave away several pair of shoes NEVER WORN and HIGH QUALITY. I gave away a box of casual and work tops that were NEVER WORN or worn only once. I gave away some wool jackets that looked new.

I am re-thinking my buying habits....how did I end up with so many clothes that I didn't wear? In any case, someone else got a good deal, when they bought those items from the charity thrift store I gave them to (benefiting the Humane Society....a good cause).

[undeterred]

113. Its barbaric to write this into the law.

[Honeycombe8]

130. When other people pay, they get the say-so on how their $ is spent.

The foster parents can always spend their own $$ on whatever they want...including new clothes.

Providing a safety net for the poor does NOT mean giving them $$$ to spend however they choose. When you ask someone else for $$$, they get to ask questions and dictate how it's spent. If you don't want to do that, don't take their $$$$. That's how it works.

If my relative asks me for $$$, and I give it....I will definitely ask questions or make it my business to find out how they've been spending their money, and I will dictate what the $ I give the relative will be spent for.

It's a shame it had to be put into the law. It should've been spent that way all along by the foster parents (except for underwear and maybe shoes). If I were poor (and I have been), buying used is a good way to go (although half price off sales at WalMart work, too...but there was no WalMart when I was young....I usu. hit garage sales, or I just didn't buy anything at all.)

[mondo joe]

254. You sound like a person of poor judgment.

You buy clothes you never even wear, but you want to tell others how they should shop?

[Zenlitened]

80. “I never had anything new,” Caswell says.

Yeah, and look what an asshole YOU turned out to be.

[alittlelark]

84. This post made me cry....

I've never been a foster kid or known more that 2-3....

But DAMN... that is a small, ignorant, and cruel comment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. It's so hard not to hate these assholes

:grr:

[catnhatnh]

88. Congratulations Mr. Caswell...

It has been WEEKS since any republican could sink far enough to make me want to puke. You sir, have exceeded even my expectations of how disgusting pond scum could be.

[coalition_unwilling]

117. Caswell is an insult to all decent pond scum - n/t

[marew]

89. Like these kids aren't already dealing with enough!?!

The Rethugs never disappoint me with how heartless they are!

[AllyCat]

92. Remember, these kids were stupid enough to be born into families with difficulties

They shouldn't be allowed to wear new clothing.

:sarcasm:

I am reasonably certain this teabagger lot are indeed Voldemort's death eaters who care about none but themselves.

[glinda]

94. I don't like funneling money towards the Salvation Army.

[Honeycombe8]

99. Why? nt

[arikara]

129. Because they are a corporate "charity"

I don't know the op's reasons but I don't like them either. I have inside info that they funnel the good donated stuff to their officers. They get their stuff for nothing and charge highly for it no matter the need. They canned all the women working in one of their care homes here most were middle age, and replaced them with much lower paid workers. These are only 3 reasons but I don't have more time to expound, will be late for work. Suffice to say we don't donate or spend there.

[Honeycombe8]

131. I'd think that the workers at all charities take good stuff they want,

before putting it out for sale. They might have to pay something for it. But I'd think they get first dibs, and pay less (like most workers @ retail stores).

All charities are corporate in the sense that they are 503(c) charities or whatever that law is.

I contribute to 503(c) charities on a regular basis. Humane Society, local cocker spaniel rescue organization, Salvation Army, etc. Actually, the good thing about the Salvation Army is that that is the ONLY charity that I know of that will pick up large furniture. The others don't have the staff to handle it. That's what I gave to Salv. Army last year....furniture. I gave the smaller stuff to the Humane Society's thrift store.

[arikara]

218. Valuable antique furniture etc

Rich seniors will leave the entire contents of their house to the Sally and the driver gets told to take prime pieces directly to the captain's house. Things like that. Its not the small stuff and its highly unlikely they are paying for it, they don't pay rent for their houses either.

[glinda]

136. Because of their discrimination policies against gays and non-Christians as well as their

horrible Bible thumping mailings.

[mzteris]

171. not to mention homophobes!

I refuse to ever give them money in their damn little red buckets.

[theHandpuppet]

95. What the bloody hell is going on in Michigan?

Some sort of mass psychotic break?

[alp227]

98. so when will the Tea Party stand up for those victims of "big government"

Because according to Fox News and conservative talk radio and the dittoheads, the government (ESPECIALLY that liberal elitist hypocrite narcissist Michelle Obama) wants to ruin American children's lives by taking away toys from Happy Meals (translation: BANNING such food) and now if those kids had parents so terrible/abusive that they have to be in foster care screw them and keep them under a nanny state. Oh wait...a Republican proposed this legislation, and when Republicans want to control people's lives it's usually those who lack lobbyists or big corporate money to fight back.

Not to mention that other guy Governor Rick Snyder, who pandered to the "limited government" people, wanting to take over city government, elections be damned.

[ejpoeta]

144. that's silly. i will bet most of them will think this is a great idea. those foster kids

are a drain.... why don't we put them out to work too while we're at it. make them earn their keep!

[Honeycombe8]

100. When someone else pays your bills, they get to call the shots.

If foster parents want to buy their foster kids new clothes, they can always pay for it themselves. They have that right.

That's the deal. When someone pays your bills or gives you money, that also gives them the right to ask questions and dictate terms.

I see nothing wrong with buying kids' clothing at used clothing places. Kids grow out of clothing so fast, it doesn't make sense to buy new, unless it's only a really good sale. I would include garage sales in the "used clothing," but they may not include that, since that's a private sale.

I'm from the deep south. It's not unusual for young families to shop garage sales for kids' clothing and shoes. It's done quite frequently and considered common sense.

I make a good salary...and even I buy some of MY clothing at "resale" shops. Keanu Reeves buys clothes at what he calls "vintage" shops (used clothing places). Wealthy people, and even middle class people, give away very nice, barely used clothing to charities and sell for consignment at resale shops. You can get really good bargains and very nice clothes!

[WCIL]

110. Do you have children you have to buy clothing for?

I am genuinely asking, because finding quality kids clothing at the thrifts takes time, and the selection is just not as varied as the selection is for adults. There is plenty of clothing up through the toddler sizes, but from there it is very hit or miss. I tried to buy used for my children, and was successful most of the time because I could shop seasons ahead. When they had an unexpected growth spurt that I wasn't prepared for, most of the time I had to buy new. When your daughter needs a coat, and your choice is a worn out Wal-Mart coat from the thrift shop for $35 dollars or a brand new Columbia coat on sale for $50 at Kohls that can be handed down to other children, it makes more sense to buy the Columbia coat.

My town has a Salvation Army, an independent Church thrift shop, and several for-profit resale shops. The re-sale shops want boutique prices for worn out clothing or specialize in business suits and career wear- not clothing for teens or children. There are finds at the other two, but can the foster child or his foster parents shop every day to snatch up that bargain as it comes in? I don't think it would be possible to immediately outfit a child using only thrift stores, and it is my understanding that many foster children come into a home with only the clothes on their backs, especially in an emergency situation.

[Honeycombe8]

132. No, I don't. But I have nieces and a nephew. And I'm one of 5 siblings...

and I've had friends with kids. Garage sale-ing among young families was just a big thing where I come from. Passing around used kids' clothing, too.

Yes, it does take time. Remember that foster mothers are stay-at-home mothers, so while they have lots to do, they are not as restricted as mothers who have all that to do, plus have to be away from home working & commuting 50 hours a week. (That's 50 hours the stay-at-home mother has that the office working mothers don't have.)

Yes, you do have to think ahead. AND you don't just go out and buy clothes whenever you need or want them. It's a mindset that Americans have gotten into, I think. When you need (or want) something, you go buy it. It hasn't always been that way. I wasn't raised that way, even though we were middle class. My mother bought school clothes for all of us once a year. Period. Then came a prom dress...which my mom got for free from a neighbor. You make do with what you have. You know at the beginning of the year that the kid will need a winter coat. No emergency shopping needed for that.

The one problem I see is underwear and shoes. Underwear has to be new, but that's pretty cheap at WalMart or Target. It's hard to find good used shoes, also. Kids wear the heck out of shoes. Still, I got hand me down shoes, or shoes a size too large that mom had bought on sale, for me to "grow into."

Let's face it. It's not that the clothes can't be found (you DO have to go through a LOT of junk before you find what you want or need). It's that people have become spoiled and used to just running to the store at the drop of a hat to buy something. The foster parents can do that. They just can't do that with the govt's $$$, anymore. The govt is saying...plan ahead, buy used, spend time looking for good buys and quality clothing...the dollars will stretch much farther. It's a shame the parents have to be TOLD that.

As for the difference between the $35 worn coat and the $50 new coat....That's still a difference of $15. There was a time in my life that that $15 would've meant I had no choice...it would've had to be the $35 coat. And that's okay. When you're poor, you might as well accept that fact. You're poor. You can't buy a $50 coat if you don't have the $$$. (You can still pass down the $35 coat, BTW. But I think anyone could find a $35 coat that doesn't look too worn. Kids aren't particularly hard on coats, esp here in the south, where they are barely used.)

[mzteris]

174. foster mothers are stay-at-home ????

WTF century are you living in?

SOME are - and I was very lucky enough to be one - but many - most are NOT. They are working moms, too - because believe you me - you cannot get rich off of being a foster parent!!

And NO - you CAN NOT CLOTHE A CHILD FROM HEAD TO TOE - shoes, socks, underwear, coats, hats, pants, shirts, EVERYTHING GD STITCH THEY NEED at a gd thrift shop in gd trip!!!! And finding BOYS CLOTHES between the sizes of 4 & 12? in good condition in quantity? And if the kid is PLUS SIZED??

I'm sick to death of your pious holier than though preaching in this thread.

Yes, I bought thrift shop clothes with my own damn money for my own kids and my foster kids - and myself!! but I'll be gdmnd if we are going to tell foster children that they are not GOOD ENOUGH TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NEW F"ING CLOTHES!

That is the gd point here.

Not being frugal.
Not recyling.

IT's about the inherent self-worth of these victims!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

104. wow they(Repukes) really are fast tracking their way back to the 1930's

[LynneSin]

256. 1930's would still be a step forward for them

I think they want back before the Civil War

[plumbob]

111. Why not just shave their heads, tattoo a number on their arms and be done

with it?

After all, shabbily dressed kids don't suffer derision from their schoolmates, teachers or staff, do they?

And EVERYONE knows that hardship is a character builder!

And BECAUSE hardship is a character builder, I propose we sacrifice the oldest child of every millionaire and billionaire in the country on top of a mountain with an altar, and then take 99.99999% of their money in taxes.

WE WILL ONLY BE BUILDING THEIR CHARACTER, right?

I have taught 3 decades in public schools, and the cruelty that children in poverty receive at the hands of everyone is astounding. I mean kids, staff, and administration.

If Casswell would like to drop by west Texas, he's got an ass whipping coming.

[coalition_unwilling]

119. I think emblazoning each piece of second-hand clothing with a

scarlet 'F' (for 'Foster Child') makes way more sense.

I grew up a poor child and would not wish it on anyone under any circumstances. Poverty as a child does not build character. Instead it erodes self esteem.

Thank you for your reply. I wish I could rec it.

[plumbob]

123. Thank YOU! I grew up in a house where my dad's business partner

literally took off with the money, leaving my dad holding the bag. His father, attorneys, even the bank, told him to declare bankruptcy, but that false pride of his meant paying the bank back over 15 years while he worked as a mechanic.

This meant:
five shirts, two pairs of pants, 7 underwear, 7 socks, and 1 pair of shoes for school each year. Period. Your last year's clothes are for play.
we lost our actual house, so lived in a 14x32 tarpaper house on two acres of land 20 minutes from town and 10 minutes from our nearest neighbor.
no driver's license or car for mom.
no telephone.
we ate at a local drive in called Wattburger once a month as our only social outing.
no movies, bowling, or school activities.
I graduated in 1971 from high school, and I promised I would never make any kid live like that. Ever. So far, so good.

[coalition_unwilling]

125. You are more than welcome. Not to try to out 'horror show' you, but

I grew up on a small dairy farm in southwest Missouri. Farm did not generate enough cash to fund family, so Dad had to work 2nd job at lcoal factory (which produced its own set of stresses and strains). We were so poor that we were on government commodities (the precursor to today's food stamp program), as ironic as that may seem. I vividly remember travelling into the town's commodities warehouse to get the bulk commodities, like peanut butter, nonfat dry milk (true irony that dairy farmers needed that, eh?) and my personal food noirs: cornmeal and pinto beans. To this day, I shudder any time I come near corn bread or pinto beans.

As the oldest child in the family, I don't remember ever getting new clothes, but I must have gotten them. I only remember this constant feeling of hunger, of never having enough, and it has colored who I am to the present (I'm 51). My wife is always getting on me about 'hoarding' food and whatnot and I am at pains to explain that it is almost something beyond my control.

It's why I would never wish poverty on any child under any circumnstances.

[coalition_unwilling]

126. You are more than welcome. Not to try to out 'horror show' you, but

I grew up on a small dairy farm in southwest Missouri. Farm did not generate enough cash to fund family, so Dad had to work 2nd job at lcoal factory (which produced its own set of stresses and strains). We were so poor that we were on government commodities (the precursor to today's food stamp program), as ironic as that may seem. I vividly remember travelling into the town's commodities warehouse to get the bulk commodities, like peanut butter, nonfat dry milk (true irony that dairy farmers needed that, eh?) and my personal food noirs: cornmeal and pinto beans. To this day, I shudder any time I come near corn bread or pinto beans.

As the oldest child in the family, I don't remember ever getting new clothes, but I must have gotten them. I only remember this constant feeling of hunger, of never having enough, the constant scorn and derision of my well-to-do schoolmates and the fact that no teacher ever put a stop to it. All this has colored who I am to the present (I'm 51). My wife is always getting on me about 'hoarding' food and whatnot and I am at pains to explain that it is almost something beyond my control.

It's why I would never wish poverty on any child under any circumnstances.

[woo me with science]

114. What an arrogant, cruel, self-satisfied fuck. nt

[Enrique]

115. why not make them stich a cloth "P" on all their clothes

P for "Poor".

[Bozita]

234. How 'bout a nice slightly used star?

[Le Taz Hot]

116. Unbelievable.

Straight out of Dickens. :mad:

[DavidDvorkin]

118. The references to Dickens are disturbing

Because the posters seem to think that Dickens approved of terrible conditions for poor children. He was a social reformer who depicted awful situations in his fiction in order to spur English society to change itself.

[coalition_unwilling]

120. Dickens grew up in poverty himself as a child, the son of a blacksmith.

The best novels to read, imho, would be 'Oliver Twist,' 'Great Expectations' and maybe 'Hard Times' for a larger sense of Dickens' views on childhood poverty and what it does to a child's sense of self.

[Zorra]

122. Yes, Dickens was a hard core liberal. nt

[coalition_unwilling]

127. The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have changed meaning

dramatically since Dickens' day. In today's world, Dickens would probably be standing with Michael Moore in defending common people against the capitalist rapists, I'm guessing. Whether that would make Dickens a 'hard core liberal' or something else, I'll leave for political historians to decipher.

[coalition_unwilling]

121. The Democratic Party should take this and make it the keystone

of the 2012 national campaign. This shows in a nutshell how cruel and heartless the Repukes are and cannot fail to sway any decent independent to the Dem side, while motivating the Dems.

[JBoy]

133. He should name it the "Second hand kids deserve second hand clothes" bill.

What a fucking dick.

[coalition_unwilling]

139. I could just see those fucking asshole Republicans do something

like that. I swear to God if the Democratic Party can't take this and make it into a noose with which to hang the Republican Party in 2012, the Democratic Party does not deserve to govern.

If you vote Repuke in 2012, you favor forcing foster children to wear only second-hand clothes. Make the Repukes defends this indefensible shit.

[Javaman]

137. next up: republicans reinstitute child labor...oh wait. nt

[tabasco]

138. I suppose all that guillotining they did in the French Revolution

wasn't all bad.

[WatsonT]

140. I don't see anything necessarily wrong with pushing predominately second hand clothes

I get most of my stuff from goodwill. The money helps people and the clothes maybe aren't this years style but they're a hell of a lot cheaper and frankly I don't care so much about looking trendy.

We put too much emphasis on fashion anyway. There are more important things to spend money on.

[lunatica]

187. The difference is you choose to buy there

And that's very very different from being forced to buy there based only on the fact that you're a foster child. I would hope you see the difference.

[WatsonT]

208. No one is forcing them to shop there

merely stating that the state won't cover purchases elsewhere.

Just like no one is forcing people on food stamps to quit smoking, they just can't use federal funds to pay for it.

People are acting like he's requiring orphans to eat spoiled food tossed out by richer kids.

Step back and think about this: what is so horrific about 2nd hand goods?

[lunatica]

213. I shop at Goodwill too

But no one puts limits on where I shop. Foster children are already at the end of the line in life. Why make it even meaner for them?

[WatsonT]

221. You are limited in where you can shop

by how much you earn.

These kids are no different.

A poor family that is not on assistance is not prevented from shopping at expensive designer label type stores.

But in reality they kind of are. Are they second class citizens? Are their lives not worth living?

The only difference is that now it's the government saying you have to get by on the cheap rather than simple economics.

[lunatica]

223. Maybe you can come up with a name for them akin to Welfare Queens

After all foster children are really such a terrible economic drag on our society. Let's just punish them for it.

[WatsonT]

224. Wow look at that hyperbole

punish them by not being able to buy clothes they don't need.

I guess I'm being punished by not really being able to afford expensive brand new clothes on my salary.

I think this cannot be repeated enough: People are starving. People are losing their homes. People are killing themselves out of despair at never finding work or being able to provide for their families. Our economy is not in the best shape and we have a looming budget crises. Now is the time to work together and make intelligent decisions.



And in light of all that we're arguing over access to designer labels made in south Asian sweatshops as apparently indispensable necessities that define who is and who is not a human.

By the hyperbole on this thread you would swear not having this years Calvin Klein is literally a death sentence or at best apartheid.

Try wearing 2nd hand clothes. Just as an experiment. If it starts to burn you can take them off but at least give it a shot.

[woo me with science]

244. Not the same.

Someone with a low income can still choose to save up their meager income and shop at Kohl's or even Macy's.

They are saying the money given by the state CANNOT BE USED except in thrift stores. In other words, we've decided that store is too upscale for the likes of you.

Big difference.

[WatsonT]

245. Nothing prevents the foster parents from

spending their own money at a nicer store.

Nothing at all.

Federal and state funds often come with restrictions.

Go buy booze with your food stamps before you tell me otherwise.

Or use them in a fine restaurant.

Poor people aren't banned from drinking or eating in nice restaurants. They merely can't do it with federal funds.

[woo me with science]

246. This is an utterly ridiculous and mean-spirited restriction.

Many other stores can and do offer deep bargains at times. The effect of this is to limit choices, which is a horrible idea for people who are limited in funds. ESPECIALLY if you have limited money, you should have all options available to comparison-shop and bargain-shop.

These families are ALREADY restricted in how much federal money they can spend. The effect of this is to limit choice and shame people for being poor. It is an unnecessary restriction and mean-spirited at the core.

[coalition_unwilling]

141. Can someone please cross-post this thread to General Discussion

also? I don't know how to do it or if it is even possible. This is an issue that can sink the Republican Party once and for all for an entire generation.

[lunatica]

190. double click on the URL above which will copy it

Start a new post where you want to reference this thread and paste the URL there so people can click on it and come here.

It's a simple copy and paste.

[coalition_unwilling]

197. Got it. Thanks. Doing it now. Sometimes

the simplest solutions . . . :dunce: :)

[ejbr]

148. Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? n/t

[mzteris]

151. are freaking kidding me?!?!?

WHAT AN ASSHOLE JERK!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

Foster kids have enough to deal with. They already feel "less than". They feel "second class" and different enough. They've lost EVERYTHING they know.

They get like five minutes to take their belongings in a paper bag. IF they even get that luxury!

They lose their home. Their parents. Their family. Their pets. Their toys. Their own clothes. Their bed. Their friends. Their school. Their routine.

And this mf wants to limit them to 2nd hand stores?!?

Does he know how hard it is to even FIND SECOND HAND CLOTHES for BOYS between say the ages of 5 and 13? Because they generally wear them the f out!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


I have no problem with shopping at second-hand stores. My older son much prefers clothes from there for a variety of reasons. And yeah, when I would buy my foster children clothes from my OWN POCKET I would sometimes shop there to supplement the meager voucher you get for such classy places as Walmart and Target!!

But to LIMIT THEM? To tell them they aren't GOOD ENOUGH FOR NEW CLOTHES?


:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[harmonicon]

152. This isn't "late breaking news".

This story's been around for some time, and it's considered to be a complete joke by everyone.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

159. Don't foster parents purchase the clothes for the kids?

If the foster parents receive a stipend to care for the kids, it seems to me that the only thing that should concern the government is that the money be used to feed and clothe the kids.

I don't have anything against buying clothes second hand (though I draw the line at underwear and socks); but I have a HUGE problem with the government telling people where to buy their clothes.

[WatsonT]

162. That is what this is about

state funds will be limited.

But what the foster parents choose to spend their money on will not.

It is not the "ban" on new clothes for foster children that it is being labeled.

[mrcheerful]

172. Ahhhhhhhh you didn't read it then

Under a new budget proposal from State Sen. Bruce Casswell, children in the state’s foster care system would be allowed to purchase clothing only in used clothing stores.

The plan was knocked by the Michigan League for Human Services. Gilda Jacobs, executive director of the group, had this to say:

“Honestly, I was flabbergasted,” Jacobs says. “I really couldn’t believe this. Because I think, gosh, is this where we’ve gone in this state? I think that there’s the whole issue of dignity. You’re saying to somebody, you don’t deserve to go in and buy a new pair of gym shoes. You know, for a lot of foster kids, they already have so much stacked against them.”

Seems pretty cut and dried what this is really about now don't it.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

199. "children in the state’s foster care system would be allowed to purchase clothing... "

The proposal makes it sound as if foster children are abusing the current system by overspending. Shame!

[WatsonT]

204. I read beyond the first sentence:

"Under his plan, foster children would receive gift cards that could only be used at places like the Salvation Army, Goodwill and other second hand clothing stores."

Gift cards with limited use do not equal a ban. Do you see anything in there about the foster parents being banned from using their own money to buy new clothes for these kids, or for the kids to use any money they acquire?

Here I'll simplify for you: your granddad decides to give you a gift card to Home Depot for your birthday. Is this a ban on you ever shopping at Lowes?

Think real hard because using your logic yes your gift has effectively banned you from shopping elsewhere.

Reading comprehension is not a 4 letter word. Actually it's two words and both of them are pretty nice.

[mondo joe]

257. The funds for kids in foster care are not a gift.

And their use should be best determined by those actually managing them.

[bhikkhu]

169. "I never had anything new" - that was me as well

and even now at 47 I can't remember the last time I bought new clothes - most of its from the goodwill we have in town. I'm less inclined to think that there's anything wrong with Caswell's position.

[mrcheerful]

176. You do know that foster parents don't have to account for one dime of the money they get for

taking in foster kids right? All Child protection does is go in see that they are being taken care of and foster parents can use the state money any way they choose to use it. I knew foster parents that used the foster care money for new cars and other things which there are no laws stopping them from doing. Once again you have to understand the program and how people use it in order to comment on said program. Btw, these same law makers also say that they shouldn't have to regulate where foster care money is spent by foster parents, after all the foster parents need to be compensated for their work providing for the kids.

[coalition_unwilling]

183. There's plenty wrong with Caswell's position, starting with his

appeal to his own mythic childhood wearing only 2nd-hand clothes and extrapolating from that to say it's appropriate for foster children.

Sanctimonious Republican prick.

Jeesh.

[WatsonT]

205. Without this years clothes how do you expect them to function in society?

The other children will beat them to death, they will be relegated to 2nd or even 3rd class citizens and cats will start having relations with dogs!

The end is nigh!

[Missy Vixen]

215. The clothing budget for a foster child in Michigan is $79 a year

The clothing/grooming budget for a foster child in Washington State is $150.

A good winter coat and a sturdy pair of shoes would most likely eat up most of that budget.

>The other children will beat them to death, they will be relegated to 2nd or even 3rd class citizens and cats will start having relations with dogs!<

Thanks for your concern.

:eyes:

[WatsonT]

222. Just channeling the hyperbole

Apparently children will beat you to death if you aren't dressed well (wearing 2nd hand clothes is like the holocaust, just look upthread)

How I made it to adulthood wearing *only* handmedowns will forever remain a mystery.

[Missy Vixen]

230. I'd like to "channel some hyperbole" as well, but

again, I'll thank you for your concern.

[coalition_unwilling]

238. Just out of curiosity, did you grow up poor? I'm guessing you

did not, because you have simply no idea what a measure like this does to the self-esteem of children (foster) whose self esteem is already far more fragile than most children's.

On the other hand, maybe you did grow up poor and are simply projecting your own internalized self-hatred onto a sub-group of children who have no means of deflecting it.

Beats me, but your repeated and vehement defense of Caswell's sociopathy is definitely not appreciated nor is it welcome.

[WatsonT]

240. Shopping at goodwill = sociopathic

Awesome.

I was wondering when someone would top the holocaust remark.

[coalition_unwilling]

263. Welcome to my Ignore list, jerk - n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

175. I bet they would not have any shoes I would not fall out of.

When I was a kid we had to go to Houston and buy my shoes at Sakowitz, which was a very nice department store, just about comparable to Neiman-Marcus in quality and price.

They don't make triple-A narrow shoes with a 6A heel, anyplace but Italy. They don't sell Italian shoes at Wal-Mart.

Now I live in sneakers, but when I was working it was Ferragamos or Bruno Maglis for dress shoes.
A pair of crepe soled Ferragamos for women used to be $275.00. Leather soles started at $325.00. That was probably back in the 1990s.

When I was in high school a pair of Italian shoes was $40.00. Early 1970s.

Of course they are incredibly soft, well fitting, well made, and you can get them resoled at a shoe shop for years.

And I would not buy cheap shoes with soles like boards. My feet bend when I walk; cheap dress shoes don't.

I inherited my bony little feet from Dad, who wore Bruno Maglis.

When I asked him what he did for shoes when he was a kid, he replied, "I walked on my hands".

:rofl:


However, my mom insisted on giving me hand-me-downs from friends with expensive store labels in them, as if that made it OK. She spent her money on patterns and yards of fabric she'd never use up, instead of actually buying me a new dress that might be fashionable and keep the other kids from picking on me. But then there's not much you can do when your mom is hell-bent on giving you a Shirley Temple permanent, and then wonders why you come home crying from elementary school. Hell, my own hair is very thick and curly, but she never noticed!! I know lots of other women who grew up in the 50s and 60s with moms who gave them stinky perms just because they wanna mess with your hair!

I threw a hissy fit when I was a senior in high school and got a new dress that cost $23. We weren't THAT poor. I got music lessons on two instruments every week for ten years.

[mrcheerful]

177. Same problem here EEE wides, I would get tennis shoes 2 sizes to large

as a kid and still end up splitting the sides out, nothing like wearing clown shoes and tripping and falling constantly because your shoes were to big.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

232. These bastards never think about the fact that people come in many different sizes.

As others have said, they can't find clothes for grade school kids that are not already worn out.

Wonder if his wife (if he has one) has one of those 2000 square foot closets I used to read about in the society pages?? To me, a 2000 square foot closet is OBSCENE.

[barbtries]

192. again. again and again.

this country is getting MEANER by the minute. :cry:

[radhika]

196. Maybe they're having a CONTEST!

Daddy Kochsickle has offered a challenge to would-be Bagger Bulls. Who among you can issue the most fiscally useless, gratuitously demeaning, in your face proof of Right Wing dominance.

Many of the other competitors have already weighed in: 1) checking women's privates to be sure their miscarraige was 'real' 2) drug testing people that want unemployement 3) having doctors read a specific block of text before treating their female patients etc. This guy was out of the box. He remembered a new vulnerable target others missed. Foster kids, living the life of riley with public subsideies.

What might be the prize? Daddy Kocksickle will personally cane his little casshole at an upcoming Repug Conference.

[bluestateguy]

210. Therin lies the problem when you take money from the government

Then the government can start attaching all kinds of bullshit rules and conditions as to how the money is spent.

[leftstreet]

217. Doesn't seem to be a problem for Wall Street bankers n/t

[WatsonT]

226. They *should have*

Too late now. But those handouts should have come with all sorts of restrictions.

[Gormy Cuss]

227. Quite right. Should have made the urchins work for it.

[WatsonT]

233. I was meaning to respond to the one about bailouts for wallstreet bankers

[Critters2]

229. Foster children didin't choose to take money from the government.

They're wards of the state, for a variety of reasons, none of them their own fault. And foster parents are serving the state, receiving (minimal) stipends to do so.

[Critters2]

228. Why not just give the foster parents their stipends, and let them decide what's best

for the children they care for.


Oh, right. That would be the party of small government. Again. :eyes:

[Arkansas Granny]

231. Wouldn't that just tell these children that they aren't "worthy" of new clothing?

I have no problem with buying clothing at thrift shops and used clothing stores. I've done a lot of shopping there for myself and my kids while they were growing up. But to mandate that a child's clothing can only be bought second hand is just ridiculous.

[SoCalDemGrrl]

235. Love the fetus- hate the child

[marasinghe]

250. filthy pukes push similar disgusting rules on food stamp users; making them feel like shit.

now they wanna get their fucking rocks off by mentally abusing foster kids.
guess the idea is to shame the recipients into extinction.

these rightwing degenerates don't qualify as human.
it's like a virus infected a predisposed segment of the planet's population,
& turned them into zombie fascists, feeding off the poor & the weak.

[LynneSin]

251. Thank you sir, may we have another.....

Personally, I have no problem with using 2nd Hand stores. But buying kids new clothes from time does help their self-esteem.

[mondo joe]

253. And removing any sense of personal choice or freedom doesn't help either. EOM

[mondo joe]

255. Authoritarians Want to Control All Aspects of Others' Personal Lives

That includes Casswell and a few posting here as well.

Foster kids didn't ask for government support. They are taken, typically after grievous abuse or neglect, and put into the custody of strangers who by one means or another feed and clothe and - hopefully - care for them.

The state issues an insignificant sum to mitigate the associated expense. But instead of saying "thanks, do the best you can", Casswell and his type need to micro-manage even how these few dollars are spent, rather than entrusting those closest to the issues to call the shots.

Thrift doesn't dehumanize, nor does recycling. But the elimination of autonomy and choice does.

[Spinny Liberal]

259. I love thrift stores BUT

I don't like the message this sends. "Second hand clothes for second hand kids" and "You're not good enough for new." I'm willing to bet that a lot of foster parents already use the money to buy most of their clothes at thrift stores. Leave the choice up to the foster parents.

[Throckmorton]

264. As a foster parent in Connecticut, this attitude is so typical

Evil child spawn of evil people, they must be punished for being born.