This is seriously a BONEHEADED idea.

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/readarticle.asp?ID=3697&District=16

Foster kids required to buy used clothing.
There is an email address for him, everybody should email him, and keep it civil

[ConHog]

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/readarticle.asp?ID=3697&District=16

Foster kids required to buy used clothing.
There is an email address for him, everybody should email him, and keep it civil

I suggest to him that all Senators should have to pay their own living expenses.

[Missileman]

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/readarticle.asp?ID=3697&District=16

Foster kids required to buy used clothing.
There is an email address for him, everybody should email him, and keep it civil

Goodwill and thrift stores exist for a reason. The kids aren't being asked to wear rags, the clothing available in those stores is in great condition and often brand new. This is no different than expecting food stamps to be used to buy nutritious food rather than candy. Maybe some of you figure Michigan should fly these kids out to Rodeo Drive for a state-funded shopping spree every year.

[Kathianne]

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/readarticle.asp?ID=3697&District=16

Foster kids required to buy used clothing.
There is an email address for him, everybody should email him, and keep it civil

I find nothing about this at the link, more guidance? I googled and found only liberal sites claiming this, but with no links backing it up.

In general though from inference I don't see how 'foster parents' could be forced to shop for used clothing, if they chose to buy new? They might spend more than they get in benefits, but seems that would be their choice.

I expect that many foster families might avail themselves to Goodwill, garage sales, etc. Others might not. I doubt however there would be a requirement. Seems for the same reason that food stamps should not be dictated regarding 'healthy' and 'unhealthy.' Choices are part of adults do. If someone on stamps chooses to buy all unhealthy food, there will be a price to be paid. On the other hand, very responsible adults and parents recognize that an occasional treat whether for themselves of for children can be an incentive to go or maintain a good attitude. Forbidding alcohol and tobacco makes massive sense, forbidding a Coke or Snickers? No.


Goodwill and thrift stores exist for a reason. The kids aren't being asked to wear rags, the clothing available in those stores is in great condition and often brand new. This is no different than expecting food stamps to be used to buy nutritious food rather than candy. Maybe some of you figure Michigan should fly these kids out to Rodeo Drive for a state-funded shopping spree every year.

[Missileman]

I find nothing about this at the link, more guidance? I googled and found only liberal sites claiming this, but with no links backing it up.

In general though from inference I don't see how 'foster parents' could be forced to shop for used clothing, if they chose to buy new? They might spend more than they get in benefits, but seems that would be their choice.

From what I read, the foster kids would be given their clothing allowance on a pre-paid card that could only be used at a thrift store.

[Kathianne]

From what I read, the foster kids would be given their clothing allowance on a pre-paid card that could only be used at a thrift store.

I missed it. Can you give me a hint? I looked, twice. Perhaps it's like 'refrigerator blindness?'

[Missileman]

I missed it. Can you give me a hint? I looked, twice. Perhaps it's like 'refrigerator blindness?'

I read it here:

http://www.care2.com/causes/michigan-gop-foster-kids-only-get-used-clothes.html

[Kathianne]

I read it here:

http://www.care2.com/causes/michigan-gop-foster-kids-only-get-used-clothes.html

Weird, while the link didn't work for me on the board, I searched out this link that is fine in the 'reply' section. Besides the point. While it was 'beside the point' I'm going to fix that link.

In general I agree with the sentiments espoused in the above link, and the referral to this one:

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

However, I wouldn't 'require' such, nor do I find a credible assertion from that congressman that he advocated for such. I would be against a 'required location purchase point' as in such a requirement there will likely be price raising, yes even at used clothing outlets.

To include a shopper's guide to foster parents, reminding or educating them on options to hold down costs, I'd have no issues. However, I do agree that the foster parents and the children deserve the options to buy new and fewer or the foster parents spending more to provide what they are comfortable with.

When my kids were little, money wasn't an issue. I occasionally spent extravagant amounts for outfits they'd rapidly outgrow for special occasions and photos. At the same time, their play clothes and even school clothes were most often gently worn hand-me-downs from their cousins or friends or purchased at a used clothing store, "Once Upon A Child." I just couldn't see the rationale behind spending $25 for 'this season' OshKosh or Izod outfits.

[Missileman]

Weird, while the link didn't work for me on the board, I searched out this link that is fine in the 'reply' section. Besides the point. While it was 'beside the point' I'm going to fix that link.

In general I agree with the sentiments espoused in the above link, and the referral to this one:

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

However, I wouldn't 'require' such, nor do I find a credible assertion from that congressman that he advocated for such. I would be against a 'required location purchase point' as in such a requirement there will likely be price raising, yes even at used clothing outlets.

To include a shopper's guide to foster parents, reminding or educating them on options to hold down costs, I'd have no issues. However, I do agree that the foster parents and the children deserve the options to buy new and fewer or the foster parents spending more to provide what they are comfortable with.

When my kids were little, money wasn't an issue. I occasionally spent extravagant amounts for outfits they'd rapidly outgrow for special occasions and photos. At the same time, their play clothes and even school clothes were most often gently worn hand-me-downs from their cousins or friends or purchased at a used clothing store, "Once Upon A Child." I just couldn't see the rationale behind spending $25 for 'this season' OshKosh or Izod outfits.

I was under the impression that the state paid foster parents so much per kid and the kids needs were taken out of that payment by the foster parents.

[Kathianne]

Seems this story is a bit older than I thought, but Caswell seems to have modified it a few months ago. While his heart was in the right place, he did get the message:

http://michiganmessenger.com/48576/casswell-modifies-second-hand-clothing-for-foster-kids-proposal


Caswell modifies secondhand clothing for foster kids proposal


By Todd A. Heywood (http://michiganmessenger.com/author/theywood) | 04.26.11 A proposal by Hillsdale County Republican Sen. Bruce Caswell to allow foster children to purchase clothing only at secondhand stores has been amended.


Caswell says in a statement on his website (http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/senators/readarticle.asp?id=3883&District=16) that he will amend the proposal to direct (http://michiganmessenger.com/46890/american-petroleum-institute-begins-direct-funding-of-political-candidates?lc=int_mb_1001) the Department of Human Services to develop a special clothing purchase program for foster kids (http://michiganmessenger.com/tag/foster-kids?lc=int_mb_1001).
Senator Caswell initially proposed issuing a gift card for the clothing allowance for resale shops in order to ensure the money would actually go toward purchasing clothing. After a suggestion from a constituent, he plans to draft an amendment to the proposal that would direct the state to work with major retailers to create a gift card program (http://michiganmessenger.com/19421/senate-passes-credit-card-reform-legislation?lc=int_mb_1001) that would ensure the clothing allowance money (http://michiganmessenger.com/tag/clothing-allowance?lc=int_mb_1001) only purchases clothing and shoes at their stores. Furthermore, the amendment will direct DHS to negotiate with the retailers for a discount on those clothing items purchased with the allowance in order to get the best deal for the recipients.


Caswell also issued the following statement about the proposals:
“My sole goal in this proposal is to make sure that children receive the clothing allowance (http://michiganmessenger.com/tag/clothing-allowance?lc=int_mb_1001) that the state has provided for them and not have it used for anything else,” said Caswell. “I believe this solution will go a long way to achieving that objective. If anyone else has a better idea on how we can ensure the money goes for clothing alone, I very much welcome those suggestions and urge you to share your ideas with me. I appreciate the input I have already received that has resulted in making the proposal better.”


What Caswell fails to mention is the enormous internet chatter that went viral over the weekend. Michigan Messenger’s blog on the issue (http://michiganmessenger.com/48487/foster-children-would-be-allowed-to-get-clothing-only-from-second-hand-stores) has been shared over 21,000 times on Facebook alone. The blog was also picked up by Fark.com (http://www.fark.com/comments/6141017/As-if-foster-kids-didnt-have-it-hard-enough-already-Michigan-decides-they-should-only-shop-at-second-hand-stores), Gawker (http://gawker.com/#%215795155/mich-lawmakers-plan-requires-fosters-kids-to-shop-at-thrift-stores) and the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-abrams/dont-balance-state-budget_b_853532.html).





I was under the impression that the state paid foster parents so much per kid and the kids needs were taken out of that payment by the foster parents.

That was my understanding also. However from the looks of what I'm reading, MI gives some sort of clothing allowance and his proposals were for ensuring that the kids got clothes. Not sure how it works though, since the 'alleged' requirement towards thrift shops seems wrong. Savvy shoppers could get better deals perhaps with incentives for the allotted amount, though they may have to use certain credit cards and discounts to do so. Being limited by voucher card could be a detriment.

[LuvRPgrl]

Seems this story is a bit older than I thought, but Caswell seems to have modified it a few months ago. While his heart was in the right place, he did get the message:

http://michiganmessenger.com/48576/casswell-modifies-second-hand-clothing-for-foster-kids-proposal





That was my understanding also. However from the looks of what I'm reading, MI gives some sort of clothing allowance and his proposals were for ensuring that the kids got clothes. Not sure how it works though, since the 'alleged' requirement towards thrift shops seems wrong. Savvy shoppers could get better deals perhaps with incentives for the allotted amount, though they may have to use certain credit cards and discounts to do so. Being limited by voucher card could be a detriment.

Thanks for the info K,
If that bonehead thinks that limiting the cards to thrift stores is going to ensure that the clothing allowence gets spent of clothing, then he obviously has never been to a thrift store.

The first link I provided was an email to send to the bonehead

[LuvRPgrl]

Goodwill and thrift stores exist for a reason. The kids aren't being asked to wear rags, the clothing available in those stores is in great condition and often brand new. This is no different than expecting food stamps to be used to buy nutritious food rather than candy. Maybe some of you figure Michigan should fly these kids out to Rodeo Drive for a state-funded shopping spree every year.

Having kids get their clothes from Kmart or Walmart is the same as shopping on rodeo drive? I guess that makes two boneheads nowl.

Candy is actually detrimental to ones health. Used clothing is not, hence the analogy is boneheaded.

Foster kids have it rough enough already, ALLOWING them to buy new clothes certainly shouldnt be any kind of a burden on the State.

[Missileman]

Having kids get their clothes from Kmart or Walmart is the same as shopping on rodeo drive? (Those are your words, not mine) I guess that makes two boneheads nowl.

Candy is actually detrimental to ones health. (BULLSHIT!) Used clothing is not, hence the analogy is boneheaded. (The analogy was a bout expectations of public monies being spent wisely...idiot)

Foster kids have it rough enough already, ALLOWING them to buy new clothes certainly shouldnt be any kind of a burden on the State.

So you're some kind of great philanthropist because you'd make the kids buy their clothes at a discount store like K-Mart instead of a thrift store. You continue to make less sense than any other current poster. Give the kids a pre-paid card to Walmart and the last thing they'll leave the store with is clothing.

[LuvRPgrl]

So you're some kind of great philanthropist because you'd make the kids buy their clothes at a discount store like K-Mart instead of a thrift store..

Care to provide a quote where I said anything about FORCING them to buy at any particular store, or a quote


You continue to make less sense than any other current poster.
THANK YOU :)


. Give the kids a pre-paid card to Walmart and the last thing they'll leave the store with is clothing.

SO THEY ARE GOING TO WALK OUT OF WALMART NAKED?

BONEHEAD #2 SAID: Goodwill and thrift stores exist for a reason. The kids aren't being asked to wear rags, the clothing available in those stores is in great condition and often brand new. This is no different than expecting food stamps to be used to buy nutritious food rather than candy. Maybe some of you figure Michigan should fly these kids out to Rodeo Drive for a state-funded shopping spree every year.


LuvRPgrl said: Having kids get their clothes from Kmart or Walmart is the same as shopping on rodeo driVE? :

BONEHEAD #2 SAID: (Those are your words, not mine)

ME:YOUR WORDS NOT MINE:

.

[Missileman]

Care to provide a quote where I said anything about FORCING them to buy at any particular store, or a quote


Having kids get their clothes from Kmart or Walmart is the same as shopping on rodeo drive?

Please notice that you clearly state that you'd have the kids shopping at KMart or Walmart.



SO THEY ARE GOING TO WALK OUT OF WALMART NAKED?

Are you so stupid that you think they're walking INTO the Walmart naked?

[LuvRPgrl]

Please notice that you clearly state that you'd have the kids shopping at KMart or Walmart.



quote?

[Missileman]

quote?

I included it in the previous post.

[LuvRPgrl]

I included it in the previous post.

Ummmm, NO.

MAKE THEM (my words) is not the same as FORCING (what you claimed I said)

So try again, QUOTE PLEASE

Oh, and by the way, you dodged the original question. Does allowing kidds to shop at Walmart or Kmart equate to shopping on Rodeo Drive (your words) ?