Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001
Ok crazy  I was just explaining to HoneyKiss how the allowance works as I know it. My cousin is a foster parent in MI and she gets around $450 a month from the state to spend as she pleases. If she wanted to spend all the money on clothes she probably could but she chooses to buy diapers and groceries. She also spends quite a bit of her own money as well.
This is nothing new, these politricks, a "look at us saving the taxpayers money" move to appease people worried about state deficits.I do like the idea of the state negotiating clothing discounts for them and if that ends up being the outcome of this, then I hope they don't STFU. |
Thanks for the detail PiKA2001. The bolded part is basically what I was alluding to
- politicians raising a stink over something that is basically a drop in the bucket (in terms of the big picture) so that it seems like they are doing something. I agree with Drolefile that a system of checks and balances should suffice as opposed to mandates.
As I've gotten older, I really get bothered how some people/politicians continuously use our country's poor/lower income class as the scapegoat for problems (ex. Budget deficits, increase in crime, etc.). Well seeing how it’s usually fear that motivates people to vote a certain way and not the truth, I’m not too surprised.