Wha is the point of the "stay on until 26" provision?

Quote

Anonymous

Guest
The administration keeps touting that staying on until 26 is some great new benefit that millions of people will come to appreciate.

What?

I am 30 now. When I was 25 I had just gotten married and was buying a house. I had a job making 50 grand a year and my wife was making 30.

I hadn't received a dime from my parents since I was maybe 20.

Who are these people that think that a 25 year old is still a child? Why not make the age 30? 25 is freakin' old to be mooching off of your parents, even in a bad economy. And yet, the government is perpetuating this notion that a 25 should be under mommy's and daddy's plan.

This is 8 years after a person is no longer required to be cared for by their parents. 8 years!!
 






Anonymous said:
The administration keeps touting that staying on until 26 is some great new benefit that millions of people will come to appreciate.

What?

I am 30 now. When I was 25 I had just gotten married and was buying a house. I had a job making 50 grand a year and my wife was making 30.

I hadn't received a dime from my parents since I was maybe 20.

Who are these people that think that a 25 year old is still a child? Why not make the age 30? 25 is freakin' old to be mooching off of your parents, even in a bad economy. And yet, the government is perpetuating this notion that a 25 should be under mommy's and daddy's plan.

This is 8 years after a person is no longer required to be cared for by their parents. 8 years!!
Click to expand...

You are exactly correct, however, this is an attempt by liberals to pander to their base. Who is it that votes for democrats? It is young, lazy, and uneducated Americans.... and liberal elitists who think they know best for all of us. This provision will inspire the young and the uneducated to vote for democrats, especially if Republicans try to stop it.
 






Anonymous said:
You are exactly correct, however, this is an attempt by liberals to pander to their base. Who is it that votes for democrats? It is young, lazy, and uneducated Americans.... and liberal elitists who think they know best for all of us. This provision will inspire the young and the uneducated to vote for democrats, especially if Republicans try to stop it.
Click to expand...

i am the OP. I see a point in maybe letting someone stay on plan through 22 as most graduate college then. But 4 years after that?

When I was 22, I went, got a job making 30k a year and received health benefits. My parents cut me of at 20 and I thank them all of the time for teaching me the value of working and a dollar. I plan on cutting my kids off at 20 also. Sink or swim.
 






Anonymous said:
i am the OP. I see a point in maybe letting someone stay on plan through 22 as most graduate college then. But 4 years after that?

When I was 22, I went, got a job making 30k a year and received health benefits. My parents cut me of at 20 and I thank them all of the time for teaching me the value of working and a dollar. I plan on cutting my kids off at 20 also. Sink or swim.
Click to expand...

It is the gradual incremental implementation of the Nanny State.
 






Anonymous said:
i am the OP. I see a point in maybe letting someone stay on plan through 22 as most graduate college then. But 4 years after that?

When I was 22, I went, got a job making 30k a year and received health benefits. My parents cut me of at 20 and I thank them all of the time for teaching me the value of working and a dollar. I plan on cutting my kids off at 20 also. Sink or swim.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the 26 thing with one very important caveat: They must be full time students. Undergrad, grad school, professional school etc. If they don't have another reasonable choice for insurance ie a working spouse, then I think that it's OK. But if you're not a full time student then 26 is ridiculous!
 






The previous rule was 24 or 25, dependent on the insurance company, if the kid was a full time student. There are also coverage extensions like this for kids who are disabled or unable to care for themselves.

But now it is 26 no matter what. The point? To teach kids government dependence from the very first days of their adult lives.
 






Man For All Seasons said:
I don't have a problem with the 26 thing with one very important caveat: They must be full time students. Undergrad, grad school, professional school etc. If they don't have another reasonable choice for insurance ie a working spouse, then I think that it's OK. But if you're not a full time student then 26 is ridiculous!
Click to expand...

Translation: I agree with a benefit that will help out the middle class folks who send their kids to college, like me and my upper middle class friends, but those irresponsible poor people who have kids who are trying to subsist on minimal wages at low skill jobs (maybe taking part time classes because they and their parents cant afford to have them go to school full time), can go screw themselves.

Now excuse me while I go complain about my taxes as I fill out my 1040 and take my full mortgage deduction on my present home and my vacation home.
 






Anonymous said:
Translation: I agree with a benefit that will help out the middle class folks who send their kids to college, like me and my upper middle class friends, but those irresponsible poor people who have kids who are trying to subsist on minimal wages at low skill jobs (maybe taking part time classes because they and their parents cant afford to have them go to school full time), can go screw themselves.

Now excuse me while I go complain about my taxes as I fill out my 1040 and take my full mortgage deduction on my present home and my vacation home.
Click to expand...

No man, I didn't get shit from my parents for college. I took out a bunch of loans and am still paying them off. I took out over $40,000 in loans and worked 20 hours a week to pay for everything else. And the irony I was from an upper middle class family that didn't believe in handouts.

College is not a right. Parents shouldn't be paying for their kids college. If the parents chose to, it is a choice they made and I as a tax payer shouldn't have to fund (or in this case offset their healthcare costs).

If you are poor you already get federal pell grants and other giveways.

Your argument falls flat on its face.

Your last statement really sums up your issue with those who are more successful than you are.
 






Anonymous said:
Translation: I agree with a benefit that will help out the middle class folks who send their kids to college, like me and my upper middle class friends, but those irresponsible poor people who have kids who are trying to subsist on minimal wages at low skill jobs (maybe taking part time classes because they and their parents cant afford to have them go to school full time), can go screw themselves.

Now excuse me while I go complain about my taxes as I fill out my 1040 and take my full mortgage deduction on my present home and my vacation home.
Click to expand...

Thanks for exposing your profound ignorance and interest in class warfare.
 






Anonymous said:
No man, I didn't get shit from my parents for college. I took out a bunch of loans and am still paying them off. I took out over $40,000 in loans and worked 20 hours a week to pay for everything else. And the irony I was from an upper middle class family that didn't believe in handouts.

College is not a right. Parents shouldn't be paying for their kids college. If the parents chose to, it is a choice they made and I as a tax payer shouldn't have to fund (or in this case offset their healthcare costs).

If you are poor you already get federal pell grants and other giveways.

Your argument falls flat on its face.

Your last statement really sums up your issue with those who are more successful than you are.
Click to expand...

My point was that some people dont recognize that by subsidizing their pet cause (only cover full time students), they dont realize the bias inherent in the idea. And that bias (since I apparently need to spell it out), is that the people who are not full time students may very well be the people who need that benefit to stay on their parents insurance plans the most.... i.e. the single mom who is unemployed because there is no jobs, or a guy who is eking out a living at a crappy no benefits job while trying to earn a degree part time.

The statement about tax deductions on vacation homes was a bit of wry humor showing the hypocrisy of complaining about tax burdens while simultaneously benefiting from a tax break that seems to be in place exclusively for the upper middle class. I dont really have an issue with people who have vacation home mortgages... mine is making me plenty of money in appreciation as I enjoy an interest deduction... but I do have an issue with people of priveledge who whine about taxes.
 






Anonymous said:
My point was that some people dont recognize that by subsidizing their pet cause (only cover full time students), they dont realize the bias inherent in the idea. And that bias (since I apparently need to spell it out), is that the people who are not full time students may very well be the people who need that benefit to stay on their parents insurance plans the most.... i.e. the single mom who is unemployed because there is no jobs, or a guy who is eking out a living at a crappy no benefits job while trying to earn a degree part time.

The statement about tax deductions on vacation homes was a bit of wry humor showing the hypocrisy of complaining about tax burdens while simultaneously benefiting from a tax break that seems to be in place exclusively for the upper middle class. I dont really have an issue with people who have vacation home mortgages... mine is making me plenty of money in appreciation as I enjoy an interest deduction... but I do have an issue with people of priveledge who whine about taxes.
Click to expand...




Your arguments about single mothers and a poor guy trying to get a college degree are interesting, but my response is "Why should I care?" We all cut our own deal in life, or shit happens to good people. It is what those people do with the cards dealt is what defines good people.

My father graduated HS and literally dug ditches for a living. No joke. He became a construction worker (non union) and slowly built his skills up and over time became quite successful. Then he became the "upper middle" class he wanted to be and ended up getting a nice cushy job in construction management making a good 150 a year. Not bad for a guy with a HS education. And he didn't need a government hand out, a government program or anything. He did it himself. I think guys like him are a dying breed. People born after 1960-70 (say) look to the government. My grandfather and father had it right, if they relied on the government for help back in the day, they would have starved. And the funny thing is, the best days of America are behind us. I always sort of wonder what it would have been like to live in the days when America was a "go-getter." I guess I always have history books.
 






Anonymous said:
Your arguments about single mothers and a poor guy trying to get a college degree are interesting, but my response is "Why should I care?" We all cut our own deal in life, or shit happens to good people. It is what those people do with the cards dealt is what defines good people.
Click to expand...

And those people who fall to the side of the road via bad luck or bad initial positioning dont need a hand.... they make great stepping stones when you need to walk over them... because after all, YOU WORK HARD WHILE YOU WALK while them damned lazy people just lay there.
 












The whole point of the legislatino is to make people as dependent on the gobblement as possible. The more dependent people are on the gobblement, the more control the gobblement can weild. It is always easy to promise shit to others while making them think someone else is going to foot the bill. Meanwhile, Rome burns
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote