VanishingA A A A familyA A A A faces | The Columbus Dispatch

Once again, we have all kinds of money in our society for a few drug, oil and insurance executives, but none for vulnerable children in need.

This sinful society, and the few who benefit at the expense of the many in particular, are deserving of a harsh reckoning.

If a family has a desire to adopt a child, then decide if you can afford to do that. Don't expect a subsidy! There are plenty of good parents, and others, that plan their finances if they decide to take on such a responsibility! If I plan to adopt a child, I will support that child!

The oldest trick in the book... Cut visible programs to gain sympathy from the public. How much does it cost to keep a website going? Not much. The schools employ this tactic by cutting sports programs, and cities do it by refusing to fix potholes. Put together a citizen's committee to review the budget and I'll bet they could make better decisions than this.

The sad reality is that this will not only affect potential adoptive placements, but also families who took on children with sometimes severe special needs or high levels of risk knowing that there would be help for them down the road. The families have committed for up to 18 years and may now find that they are abandoned by the agencies who said that help would be there for them.

What the cynics don't realize is not only the tremendous cost associated with taking on a child with expensive pre-existing conditions, or unknown levels of trauma to be healed--but also that even with subsidies, adoption is not only a better situation for the children, it saves the state money. Foster care of kids with complicated needs is far more expensive than adoption, even with significant subsidy. And in the end, the outcomes of adoption are better than even the most skilled and profoundly caring of foster homes.

With the onslaught of social media there should be some free alternative to allow this to continue.

GoSmallBusiness wrote:

The oldest trick in the book... Cut visible programs to gain sympathy from the public. How much does it cost to keep a website going? Not much. The schools employ this tactic by cutting sports programs, and cities do it by refusing to fix potholes. Put together a citizen's committee to review the budget and I'll bet they could make better decisions than this.

My favorite school levy tactic is to cut bus routes. Then they put all this in the local news and people get the impression that 5 year old kids will be walking down the interstate.

They tried this with our school district's last levy attempt. "Busing was being severely cut if it didn't pass" When it failed a miracle happened. All of a sudden there were state funds to continue busing as usual.

Anyone with a triple digit I.Q. could see through this load of mule muffins.

Vox Populi wrote:

Once again, we have all kinds of money in our society for a few drug, oil and insurance executives, but none for vulnerable children in need.
This sinful society, and the few who benefit at the expense of the many in particular, are deserving of a harsh reckoning.

Figures, blame it on someone that has nothing to do with the problem, pathetic. How about bashing atletes and actors, some actors make 20 million a movie, thats fine because they are liberals, execs are thought to be repubs. we have just passed a 787 billion stimulus bill and the dems that are currently passin it out to their friend could easily cough up something for the children. Dems are not for the children. Just one tidbit from stimulus, 400,000 for a special radar for a helicopter to help track bear scat, that is 400 k that dems chose not to spend on the children because children don't vote democrat.

GoSmallBusiness wrote:

The oldest trick in the book... Cut visible programs to gain sympathy from the public. How much does it cost to keep a website going? Not much. The schools employ this tactic by cutting sports programs, and cities do it by refusing to fix potholes. Put together a citizen's committee to review the budget and I'll bet they could make better decisions than this.

Point well-taken, but mine is still valid. We need to cut all non-essential spending to the bone, provide for those who cannot help themselves and destroy the corporate class.

bob wrote:

<quoted text>
Figures, blame it on someone that has nothing to do with the problem, pathetic. How about bashing atletes and actors, some actors make 20 million a movie, thats fine because they are liberals, execs are thought to be repubs. we have just passed a 787 billion stimulus bill and the dems that are currently passin it out to their friend could easily cough up something for the children. Dems are not for the children. Just one tidbit from stimulus, 400,000 for a special radar for a helicopter to help track bear scat, that is 400 k that dems chose not to spend on the children because children don't vote democrat.

Fine, let's get rid of the crooked Democrats too, but my point is still valid. The inequity in this pathetic society is outrageous and the wealthy who have abused their privileged access to government to gain special favors for themselves at the expense of the many, ala health insurance monopolies/oligopolies, etc., need to be sent straight to hell!

If you want people to take these kids, you have to provide the subsidies, period. Now, if we are telling the truth about it, those that complain about higher taxes and the need for smaller government are THE LAST TO ABOPT A CHILD!

Don't complain about adoption subsidies and the adoption budget if you are not willing to be a part of the solution (i.e. adopt a child). Those that opposed the casinos last Tuesday should be the last to complain about no money for adoption services.

When I first started reading the article, I thought it was going to say that the photos were too public and violated the kids' privacy.

I agree with what someone else said: How much does it to run a website? One or two people posting pictures and typing in a bio for the child and taking them down when notified the child is adopted or fostered.

The Last To Adopt wrote:

If you want people to take these kids, you have to provide the subsidies, period. Now, if we are telling the truth about it, those that complain about higher taxes and the need for smaller government are THE LAST TO ABOPT A CHILD!
Don't complain about adoption subsidies and the adoption budget if you are not willing to be a part of the solution (i.e. adopt a child). Those that opposed the casinos last Tuesday should be the last to complain about no money for adoption services.

Why not force the birth parents to PAY their own child's "subsidy?" The state & our tax dollars did not give birth to them! omg

The Last To Adopt wrote:

If you want people to take these kids, you have to provide the subsidies, period. Now, if we are telling the truth about it, those that complain about higher taxes and the need for smaller government are THE LAST TO ABOPT A CHILD!
Don't complain about adoption subsidies and the adoption budget if you are not willing to be a part of the solution (i.e. adopt a child). Those that opposed the casinos last Tuesday should be the last to complain about no money for adoption services.

Well, I voted against the casinos, I am complaining he loss of subsidies and I have adopted children--both with and without subsidy. You got a special box to put me in?

Absolutely outrageous.

bob wrote:

<quoted text>
Figures, blame it on someone that has nothing to do with the problem, pathetic. How about bashing atletes and actors, some actors make 20 million a movie, thats fine because they are liberals, execs are thought to be repubs. we have just passed a 787 billion stimulus bill and the dems that are currently passin it out to their friend could easily cough up something for the children. Dems are not for the children. Just one tidbit from stimulus, 400,000 for a special radar for a helicopter to help track bear scat, that is 400 k that dems chose not to spend on the children because children don't vote democrat.

This is a Republican state, whether we have a Democrat in the governor's office or not at the moment, Bob.

We have a Democrat as governor as a direct result of Republican mismanagement and corruption, while Ohioans are dumb enough to think another one will fix the worst economic mess we've seen since the Great Depression because of a Republican administration run by war criminals masquerading as statesmen.

And you blame Democrats?

No wonder we think all Republicans are either insane or liars, Bob.

Which are you?

Adoptive Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I voted against the casinos, I am complaining he loss of subsidies and I have adopted children--both with and without subsidy. You got a special box to put me in?

No, but immense admiration just the same.

For what that might be worth at the moment.

Mimi wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not force the birth parents to PAY their own child's "subsidy?" The state & our tax dollars did not give birth to them! omg

Someone who was either unable or unwilling to care for that child brought a life and its accompanying misery into our world until it finds a loving home.

Your comments remind me how typical unchristian 'christians' think and behave in Ohio.

For shame.

Vox Populi wrote:

Once again, we have all kinds of money in our society for a few drug, oil and insurance executives, but none for vulnerable children in need.
This sinful society, and the few who benefit at the expense of the many in particular, are deserving of a harsh reckoning.

That's why the FCCS levy passed with 61% of the vote. That's why the USA is the most generous, charitable country in the world. More info, should you choose to participate:

"According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, the United States had 902,270 public charities in 2006. You can choose to give your money to help build houses for the poor, find cures for diseases, protect endangered animals, or help children learn to read. The problem isn’t finding a charity to support, but narrowing down your options and choosing the one you find most worthy.

Of the almost one million charities registered in the U.S., many support children in one way or another. If you want to use your charitable dollars to help children, which is the best charity to choose? It can be a very difficult decision. Any of the following 25 charities (organized alphabetically) are a great place to start. Some you have surely heard of, while others may be new to you."

http://www.more4kids.info/652/top-childrens-c...

GoSmallBusiness wrote:

The oldest trick in the book... Cut visible programs to gain sympathy from the public. How much does it cost to keep a website going? Not much. The schools employ this tactic by cutting sports programs, and cities do it by refusing to fix potholes. Put together a citizen's committee to review the budget and I'll bet they could make better decisions than this.

When you lose 40% of your funding you have to cut ALL non-essential services (visible or otherwise). The website is nice and probably valuable but not essential. If you have to choose between a case manager and a web designer the choice is clear if not easy.

For a socially conservative state, for the most part, I am a little baffled by the irony. I can't count the number of pro-life bumper stickers that I see posted all over cars. Yet, once that life is out of the womb, what then? We see things like this- children are simply forgotten. Do you know who represent a large majority of the poor in this country? CHILDREN.(For those who need further explanation on this, of course children don't earn an income, but many grow up in poverty.) But no one wants to realize that dirty little secret. Don't believe me? Look it up.
I am not saying that I am someone who wishes these children were never born, absolutely not, I am just saying we, as a society, need to remember them once they are born. No one should grow up waiting and waiting.