Congratulations to them on their good luck.

Let's see, unless they tell no one, and I mean NO ONE, the Internet will have a name to the Kansas winner in 3 days or less. The effort necessary to change your liefstyle or purchasing habits in a town as small as Ottawa, KS, and not be outed, is monumental.

WHy does the lottery seem suck a ripoff ??

33% of the sale goes towards the prize money.

656 million = nearly 2 Billion in sold tickets

Then out of the 218 you only get 157 million which is a 28% reduction

Now you have to pay taxes on top of that.

35% fed = 55 million + state

So out of nearly 2 Billion three people net less than 100 million each

So why are all these states hurting so badly ??

...time to move away from Ottawa, KS, for that winner...

It is really heartening to see someone of intelligence win. Since the winner spoke of retiring, one would assume that they are of mature age. Apparently they learned something along the way. My congratulations to them.

Just goes to show that not everyone out there is interested in having their 15 minutes of fame. Some people ar just as content to remain anonymous. Good for them!!! I hope they get to enjoy their new found wealth in peace.

Out of all that lottery money the winners don't even get what the pot was worth. Most of it goes to the good old government and each state. I agree then why is everyone hurting so bad when they have reaped this giant reward? What's wrong with this picture? Too many crooks in the states and the us government with their hands out for something they don't even deserve.

Of course, you can remain anonymous in some states but once your family, extended family and 'family' members whom you've never met figure out your windfall of money the cat gets let out of the bag and the leaches cometh!

expanding...,

Well first be smart enough to know that no one is just going to hand over more than $600mil for just a dollar. Second, recognize lotteries for what they are: a tax on the math-handicapped, or a payment for a fantasy.

Dial-a-dates and psychic hotlines, other pay-per-view fantasies cost $3-$20 per minute. Fantasy games cost $20-$40 dollars per month or more. So as a cheap fantasy, the lottery is hard to beat.

Regarding the math-challenged or the sick gambler, wipeout the Lottery and you'll still find they same folks at the track, bingo games, casinos, and illegal punch card or sports dens. My church routinely deals with both the over-exuberient fantasists and math-challenged after every big jackpot. We help where we can, but also learn to recognize repeaters and turn them to counseling or say we can only help those who do not create their own misery.

Lotteries were designed to generate revenue, for the game administrators, for the state sponsors, and finally for the pay-offs. The majority of pay-offs, both by dollaars and by numbers, is in lower, unreported winnings -- the $2 to $500 payoffs plus the $1000+ play-offs. But all lottery documentation clearly states that most of the money does NOT go to jackpots, that the odds of winning a jackpot are extremely remote, and that remainder funds after prize-funds are distributed between the game administrators and the sponsoring states. Although most states dedicate these funds to education funding, how an individual state sponsor spends these fund depends on its legislature.

Finally, you are complaining that from a $200million dollar bonanza, that you had no reason to expect, that the federal government (and perhaps the state) may want to collect a tax, just like an unexpected dividend or pay raise? You're still $135-150million better off, but you're bitter? Or just bitter that you (as you were warned) lost?

Many states do not allow you to remain anonymous. These Lottos should only announce the amount that the winner actually gets to have as their own, anything else is a lie and just fluff to get people to buy tickets.

People get all excited about winning a chunk of money only to find out the real winner is the IRS and state tax boards. Game shows are the same way, after all the taxes and fees, the winner get pocket change. All that said, winning any amount is a good thing but a little honesty in advertising goes a long way.

I would not tell anyone.You here bad stories about lotto winners and what happens to them.

Finally, you are complaining that from a $200million dollar bonanza, that you had no reason to expect, that the federal government (and perhaps the state) may want to collect a tax, just like an unexpected dividend or pay raise? You're still $135-150million better off, but you're bitter? Or just bitter that you (as you were warned) lost?

1. 200 million nets 87 million to the winner and the GROSS on that is 600 million, So 500+ million goes to the gov't

2. Iam not bitter at all just thinking how wastefull our gov't is when Lotteries , gas tax, income tax , fees , etc etc and they can't balance thier budgets.

On a side not since Obama took office we just hit 5.001 TRILLION today in debt since he took office

Agreed, congratulations to the winner and his or her family--sounds like the person has worked hard for a long time. Looking forward to retirement is a good thing!

But you forgot that the DOW has gone from 8K to over 13k or unemployment has dropped significantly since he took office. Besdes it's only money! It's not like several million people were killed by weapons of mass destruction from Iraq!

Congrats , Kansas winner, who ever you are. Get it in cash, tell NO ONE and MOVE far away. Otherwise everyone and their dog and supposed "family" you never heard of before or who thought they were better than you, people who think you should "share the wealth", Charities of every persuasion, and dead beats of every sort will make life miserable standing around with their hands out. Just MOVE far, far away. Anonymity and a change of location will save you a lot of grief.

expandinghealthcare.com - I think that you still need to work on your math.

The GROSS wasn't 600 million. It was this value of winning paid over 26 year. The math is based on that money growing and generating interest that would partially off set the payments to the winner. If you want your money NOW, that interest would never have been generated so the winner cannot collect it. Actually, taking your money up front is a good idea because I'd hope that you could do better than doubling your money after such a long period of time.

I'd like to say congrats to the winner. I hope that it helps you to achieve new dreams and brings you happiness.

Rocko;

Are you serious? The DOW may be up but, it won't take much to send it in the toilet again. Unemployment is 8.2%, which he said it would never be, he guaranteed no more than 8.0% remember? And that's not accounting for those who have exhausted UE benefits and remain un/ under employed, since the government doesn't count them. Hiring has again slowed to a trickle and hadn't actually been all that swift to start with. Let new employment stale and guess what happens to the DOW?

As to the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I think the Kurd's would differ with that assertion, given Saddam's repeated chemical weapons attacks on them. Or do not chemical agents count as WMD's? Do they not kill indiscriminately? Must a mushroom cloud accompany a weapons use to qualify as a WMD? How about a biological agent that would kill millions over the effected area, or a nerve agent that can wipe out millions in a population center.

Here's a novel idea, why not see the world as it is, instead of how your told it is. You might really be surprised just how badly you've been mislead.

We can complain and complain.

For the winners, the return on a dollar is substantial. For the losers, who cares? When the financial institutions are paying a pittance on investments, some of us would rather burn a few dollars (burn, waste, whatever) than allow them (the financial institutions) to make additional money off of ours.

When financial institutions make multiple amounts of interest off of our money, while getting theirs at the lowest rates they could ever hope for, then I have no qualms about burning a few dollars whatever the odds. If I were to choose between the government and the investments they make in education or roads or whatever with the proceeds, or the financiers with the investments they make in bonuses for themselves from extravagant interest rates...I'll rather donate to the good of all Americans than just a select few.

"The good of all Americans"?, and the government as that instrument? Who do you think sets interest rates? Who well would your money be if interest rates on homes and other durable goods was say 8 or 10%? You speak as if financiers and Government are separate entities. I suggest you look into this whole thing a bit deeper. You'll find most in government ARE the financiers you rail against. And the last time I looked a 30 years fixed mortgage was 3.25%, not seen since the last 50 years. Do you think you have ever been on even ground with banks as far as interest rates are concerned? Really? Take economics 101.

$100 million is still a pretty good return on a $1, $10 or even a $100 dollar investment.

As for the states getting the lions share, would you prefer higher taxes and fees?

thats a sweet 110 and a half million dollar check people. that person is in a different universe now. i wish them the best and hopefully with help out a lot of people.

Just goes to show that not everyone out there is interested in having their 15 minutes of fame. Some people ar just as content to remain anonymous. Good for them!!! I hope they get to enjoy their new found wealth in peace.

Another silly post from JS in SD.

of course they want to remain anonymous! Who would want all the welfare/food stamp creations of the Obama reign to be banging on their doors because they know the government handouts won't go on for ever....! I do agree that they enjoy their new wealth, just not what JS means....

Mommie! (Or daddie, or whatever, we'll figure that out later.) I'm you're long lost sonny-boy! Okay, mom, (or dad), fork it over. We'll figure out how to deal with Thanksgiving or Christmas some other time. Blah-blah-blah. Just give me my money. I wuv wou, Mommie! (Or daddie or whatever.)

I"m glad they got to remain unknown. My state requires that you go public and then you get hounded to death by bums and the media.

If I won that lotto, I wouldn't tell ANYONE. I wouldn't let on I had a ton of money. I'd keep working (I'd prefer to keep myself busy and not turn into a useless socialite), and buy a modest house where I live -the kind that blends in with every other house in case people who know me already could visit and not be suspicious.The good news is my family very rarely visits me, so I would buy a second house and splurge on that one, but just not let on I have a second house. Same with my car. It'd be in a completely different city (if not state), and no one would know. I really mean it when I say I wouldn't even tell my family. I have siblings who- right now- are the most spoiled people. I know they'd expect handouts from me. Um, NO! Yup, a double life is the way to go!

Subtle but I get it LOL!

for the CPA and other financial people you are correct.

And once they quit thier normal job and retire that will open a posistion for someone else.

Yep every dollar they spend will flow through the economy. $100 million could easily create a few startups or new franchises.

Of course if you are an obamaq supporter you would want them to contribute it all to his super pac. LOL.

Best wishes to the winners. Spend wisely, not like government....

^
Exactly. Consumer demand creates jobs. Not a few rich dudes.

Too bad in same states (like MN) you have to come forward and accept it publicly and hold up your big check.

It sucks, I know. But if you don't do that here you cannot claim the prize.

I would choose to remain anonymous too, but in the state of Missouri you cannot remain anonymous.

I think I would wear a disguise and then move. I think it is crazy that they make you disclose your name. Brings all the nuts out.

of course you would

I would remain anonomyous as well. I just wish they announced where the ticket was sold cause I dont trust the folks in our office pool!!

If that's the case did you mean that this country is dangerous if you have only few hundred million dollars? Why there are Lotto winners who are still enjoying their money splashing all the luxuries and they are still alive?

Good move, imagine all of the "relatives" he didn't know he had coming out of the woodwork.

Congrats to the winner and too bad for the media whoremongers.

I find it hard to believe that in some states you must come forward publically if you win a large jackpot. I have not purchased lottery tickets everywhere (in fact, only in the state I reside) but I've never seen anything on a ticket that says you cannot remain anonymous.

The first thing I'd do is fight this one in court.

I just wish they announced where the ticket was sold cause I dont trust the folks in our office pool!!

"The winning ticket was purchased at a Casey's convenience store in the eastern Kansas town of Ottawa, Wilson said"

Sometimes, all one has to do is read the article. LOL

Well, if I lived in a state that required showing up in person, then I think that a burqa is called for: jilbab, hijab, niqab, and all. And a name change afterwards--that will help too, I'm sure.

Most likely, they want everyone who might deserve a piece of the pie--like any ex-spouses who are owed support payments--to know who you are. But, if I couldn't wear a burqa, then I think a trip to a really good makeup artist would be worthwhile.

If you have unpaid fines, taxes, child support etc---that is taken before the payout. They check everything. That is why it takes several weeks for you to get the money.

I rather remain anonymous too.

I believe the states that has the laws to remain anonymous for a lottery win also have a deadline to collect before it expires the ticket..in those states its 180 days. Now states where you have to do a show and tell..the deadline is 365 days to make a claim before ticket expires.

All lottery states should have an option to remain unknown, it's only fair to the winner. The so called Maryland winner decided to make a circus for herself and succeeded "by losing the ticket" she wished she had.

beanathome - LOL show up in a full-on hijab and I think it's religious clothing? I'm not sure they could prevent you from showing up in your religious clothing. Just because you switch religion when you get back to your home, so what!? LOL Just bow and thank Allah or something! LOL FUNNY! GOOD ONE! I'd have to study up a little...obviously. I'm NOT a religious fanatic, but in a winning scenerio I might get a little religion for a little while! :)

If.. and I mean IF... she does have the ticket her co-workers would have to prove there was in fact a pool and have proof of the numbers. At our office we make photocopies of ALL ticket numbers cause every one of us also buys separate tickets with our spouses and families. No photocopies... no sharing! If those dolts were dumb enough not to do that (and they work at McDonald's so I'd say chances are good they didn't) I'd consider them SOL.

Because our welfare system pays you more the more kids you have.

These people are geniuses when it comes to playing our welfare / tax system, but not geniuses at anything else.

implement forced abortions and sterilizations on anyone who tries to have more than one kid.

O_O;

because we pay for it and the more kids they make the more they get lets make the fathers pay and if they dont know who they are then they dont get paid they will tell who the father is real quick

That is a common fallacy! Obviously, you know nothing about the money (not to mention, generous paid leave, free health care, etc) French women receive for having a child. They effectively subsidize childrearing in that country, yet they do not have the problems we have with underemployed, unmarried women popping out kids one after the other. Clearly, there are social and other factors involved that we're not paying enough attention to.

Clearly, there are social and other factors involved that we're not paying enough attention to

See: Education.

Jenny really??? forced abortions etc. Next you will be endorsing killing the living because they don't meet your criteria. What about our freedoms which our forefathers (and active military) fought for. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Are you going to throw all that away? There are better ways such as educating the masses about the effects of over population, limiting how much welfare a family can have etc.

Jenny-1680959, I really hope you are kidding. If you aren't please move to China.

The more children she has the more she gets from the Govt. yes she still collects while working at MD's.

I was a housewife and after my divorce I had to work at a dry cleaners. I have 4 children...is that AWFUL too? I'm just asking because we don't really know her situation as of yet but I'm sure we will soon find out because the lady is just plain CRAZY!.

@Laura she is a hatian immigrant so it's possible she brought the children with her.

The French are having they're own problems with the economy and immigrants. They are starting to lose some of their generous benefits so apparently that isn't the answer to the problem.

Women DO get paid more when they have more children. I saw something on television the other day about a homeless woman who had FOURTEEN kids. That's inexcusable. The left can say whatever they want, but the fact is women can get free birth control in this country.They've been able to for quite some time.

dirp

Now that made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

Jenny -

I don't know where you came from, but crawl back under your rock.

Responsibility today? It's been the death of ethics for years. Everything today is based upon situation ethics, if you don't like your situation, just go postal so the news media gives that 15 seconds of fame.

Ruken and Scot--do you know how much a person gets for each "additional" child? About $35 a month--that is, not enough to pay for diapers or food.

The average woman on welfare has 1.5 children--the same amount as the average woman--and is of European descent.

If there really was a simple method by which women could have many, many children and never have to work a day in their lives, you would see more such women. Conversely, you wouldn't see so many single moms who are working three jobs just to get by.

There are some scam artists--some of the women you see on welfare with 7 children are usually raising their nieces, nephews, and grandchildren also (they aren't all biological children). That is, anyone who can't really afford said child (or who is a druggie or prostitute) will dump the child on a relative who is collecting welfare and will then head for the hills for a while, perhaps permanently. The woman on welfare will get kicked off in about 1 and 1/2 years (there is a limit, you know), but one can do a scam temporarily.

To do a more permanent scam, one needs to be disabled. That is doable, but a lot harder--and people who pull that stunt not infrequently wind up in jail.

So, no, there are no substantial number of "welfare moms." That's one of those myths that people who think that welfare is expensive--the term "entitlement" program doesn't refer to welfare, my dears, it refers to Social Security and Medicare--like to perpetuate.

We haven't had "welfare queens" since the 1990s, when Clinton fixed most of that barely existent problem. We are in the 21st century now--keep up.

I bet she doesn't even know what pro-life is. But she is pro-stupid and pro-sex.

Chances are she is here illegally or on a visa.

The welfare recipents are all Democratic because they want to keep those welfare checks coming.

Bosslimo:

Your post is the stupidest thing I've read today, and I've read some amazingly stupid stuff!!!

FREEDOM TO CHOOSE, SELF CONTROL, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Common sense is a foreign idea to a post such as yours.

BTW, "you win" because you hooked me with that adolescent claptrap.

If you receive ANY govt assistance and get prego you should get help for that one MISTAKE ONLY!!!!!!!!!!

IF you can not afford to pay your way and your kids way then you should not be allowed to have more kids.

In order to receive any more govt bennies you should have to be on MANDATORY birth control......shots...pills.....etc............

If you are so stupid as to get pregos again on govt assistance I would say ok then you entitlement liberal low life TRASH training generation after generation how to abuse the system controlled by liars that just want to buy your vote and keep your entire race if possible (and other poor folks) held down and in the bag to one liar party for KICKBACKS for your BLOCK votes by making broken promises that never materialize but since they promise more free stuff you vote for them ...........

We are so nice we'll help you out once again, but your tubes are tied this time...... !

Of course the frankfurt cultural marxists elite jew media liberals would go bananas b/c it is their primary voting block that keeps them in control through the manipulation of useful idiots. Soros nyc wall street and hollywood media jews.....it is all about their power and control of the democratics and there fore their control of the us govt through their cronies.

In other words they want the idiots to reproduce on the tax payers teets b/c it helps keep them in power by keeping the liars they paid off for kickbacks in office all the while looking charitable even though it is a PR firm/expense to them and the kickbacks more than offset the destruction that happens to the rest of decent hard working americans.............at least for the elite liberals that control nyc, the NE, DC, cali that is......as long as their cronies are in office and they have inside help/info and they look charitable to useful idiots........they could care less about decent honest pay their own way work hard for living REAL americans.

Vote those USERS back in office if you want to destroy america. They have almost completed their cultural marxist objectives.

After the welfare reform in the 90's time limits were introduced into the welfare program. Welfare is now called TANF which stands for temporary assistance for needy families. The federal maximum time limit is 60months. However, each state can shorten the time limit at their own discretion. In addition to this limit the parents must be actively looking for work which means they have to have a form completed by prospective employers stating they went in for a interview. The forms must be turned in to the state office as proof the individual has been looking for work. Any children a woman has while on this program DOES NOT GET ADDITIONAL FUNDS for the children. So mom's are no longer being rewarded financially by how many children they have. Mom's can also get vocational schooling paid for or grants for college while on TANF. Few take advantage of this option.

Beano

WIC, section 8, food stamps, earned income tax credit, medicaid are advertised on bill boards and they even have sales representatives that help explain the life style to teen girls at our indoctrinated public school systems which are of course union controlled and used to train kids to vote demonuism ,

For self serving union reasons of course.

35 dollars extra, hahahahaha, try 30K A YEAR ADDING UP ALL THE GOVT ASSISTANCE!

and of course they dont get married b/c that cuts in on the profits......

great morals and ethics our govt is teaching these young americans...they are set up for success!

Dynamik, Dynamik:

Bless your soul for your observation and factual extrapolation:

The welfare recipients are all Democratic because they want to keep those welfare checks coming.

To extend your logic....all Social Security and Medicare recipients are also Democratic (sic) - Democrats, because they want to keep those Social Security and Medicare benefits coming. If that logic is true, then the Republicans have no hope of winning the next election. The number of people on Social Security alone dooms that idea. lol

4thDown: I'd submit that the ones receiving SS and Medicare, regardless of any political affiliation, want to keep those benefits coming because they were FORCED to pay into them ALL OF THEIR LIVES. Now, show me where anyone is forced to pay into a "welfare fund" for themselves if they ever decide they want to apply for welfare. It doesn't exist. Sorry, your logic is flawed and does not work.

But I have to say that I love the "bless your soul" line. That's why I like living in the south. Down here, you can say anything you want about someone, as long as you add a bless their heart, or God love 'em at the end.

For example: You stupid, putrid, lying, little pile of degenerate dog S#IT!!...bless your little heart. See how disarming that is ;-)~

Sarcasticus1

My post can not possibly be stupid.

Republicans are against contraception. I know for a fact because I have seen too many conservatives defending it on here.

Republicans are against abortions. I know because I have seen too many conservatives on here defending that stance.

Republicans are against Planned Parenthood. I know because I have seen too many conservatives defending that stance as well.

Therefore, when a woman has 7 children, it must be true that she supports the stance of republicans and also supports the views of conservatives.

However, when a woman heeds the demands of her party and does not partake in birth control, does not kill her child with an abortion, and does not go to planned parenthood for advice, you can NOT chastise her for her children.

As a conservative, you must stay true to yourself, right?

You can not be against everything that prevents pregnancy and also be against everything that would let the child live.

So, you either support pregnancy or you oppose it.

If you don't like welfare you must support birth control, regardless of its methods.

You preach freedom to choose. She obviously used her freedom to choose to have 7 children.

You preach self control. She obviously controlled herself from the evil use of contraception, as it goes against her republican's beliefs.

You preach personal responsibility. My God! How much more responsibility does she have to have? She is raising 7 children for heaven's sakes!!!

Jenny, I understand your position, there will come a time when overpopulation will be a real reason for concern. In my youth in NY I often wondered why the state had extended periods of deer hunting. Seems that not controlling the deer population just meant all the deer ended up suffering.

Bosslimo, how much you want to bet that gal is not Republican? If she belongs to any party at all, and you're honest with yourself, you know she's Democrat.

Bosslimo, sure your post can be stupid. Your second posting even more so. You assume a position that can not be statistically sustained or why the republicans would be against something without knowing the reason why.

BTW - last I knew planned parenthood only gets about 7% federal funding outside of medicaid/medicare payments. Taxpayers don't need to contribute that 7%, let it come from private funding.

Bosslimo: I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, but as a conservative, I'm not against birth control.

What I am against are people who think it's their right to have someone else pay for their birth control. Use all the birth control you want, anytime you want. Just pay for it yourself.

I am against abortions. But in my incremental step to get rid of abortion on demand, I'll limit it to rape, incest and life of the mother. Liberals are all about compromise aren't they? I know we've had this discussion before, so I won't rehash every point here, except to say that if the liberals use the "it's my body excuse for abortion", then I can sure as hell use it for Obamacare. It's my body and I want the government to stay the hell out of my health care. The comparative logic is absolutely rock solid.

I'm not against Planned Parenthood, I'm against my tax dollars going to support it.

I don't chastise women for having kids. Have as many children as you can afford to pay for and raise, hopefully, with one and only one father inside of a solid marriage. I do chastise women who throw all personal responsibility of any kind to the wind for their own sexual gratification, many times with multiple fathers, and then expect the tax payers to fund her kids. Have as many kids as you want with as many fathers as you want. Just don't expect me to pay for them.

Why is the question never asked of the recipient class (those receiving money from the government paid in by federal income tax payers) "why are you having kids if you can't afford them?". And if you are using abortion as birth control, why is no personal responsibility about taking steps to prevent the pregnancy never asked of them? Why is it such an absolute right for them to fail to show any resemblance of personal responsibility....and then expect someone else to pay the bill? Why are they such weak people that they apparently have no concept of self control? Why are those questions never asked?? And God forbid, if you dare suggest that the women having multiple abortions be forced to use birth control, the left would go apoplectic at that thought....while insisting that others be forced to pay for the kids if she decides to keep them. Regardless of how some might feel about birth control, the last I checked, it's still available at almost every drug store in America for just a few dollars.

You try valiantly to twist her behaviors into something supported by the right, but you know it's a total and absolute lie. However, I even though it often doesn't translate in text, I suspect more that a bit of sarcasm in that section of your post. But, if you have any evidence, any evidence at all, to show support for your argument, please produce it.

She is raising seven kids, but the rest of us are paying for them. I wonder how many have the same father??

But, I do give her credit for working. That is more than many do. So high fives and hats off to her for that. I've never understood those that turn their nose up at working at McDonalds. It's a multi-billion dollar organization that offers advancement opportunities for those that show they have what it takes. Anyone who thinks managing a busy fast food restaurant is an easy job is an idiot. So the fast food fascist fools can go F themselves. Try saying that fast five times. (Bosslimo, not talking about you on that one, just a rant I wanted to get in there)

We Need Leaders - Not Politicians

Oh, I'm willing to place my bet that she doen't belong to any party. However, her status quo rates her a right wing republican. All indications shows her support for the far right mantra.

She is the poster child for the republican advocacy.

______________________________________________________________________________________

ConservativeNotRepublican

Do I really have to list all 1100 legislations put forth by the republican party to support the facts???

Google- so others don't have to.

If you are unaware of the attacks on women rights, educate yourself. If you are unfamiliar with the republican talking points, just look them up. Everything I said is exactly the republican agenda I claimed it to be. Republican, any hermit could tell you, is opposed to abortion.

My point was made. This woman with 7 children is exactly the results the republicans want. She is also the consequence of such results. You raise valid questions as to why a poor person would use government funding to support a child she has no way of supporting and knowing that fact before conception.

So, it is down to this one question. Do you want government funding poor children's survival or do you want government supporting birth control? You can't have it both ways. What suits you better?

The republicans want neither. And that is impossible for them as it is for you.

I can't knock Mickey D's. I'm with you there. It gives people an opportunity many need. Any restaurant work is a benefit. I was raised to fend for myself. A restaurant gave me a car and funds for my teenage years.

Just for that comment alone I hope she did win. Truthfully and all honesty, it is none of your business how many children she has.

Bosslimo: You don't have to show the 1100 you claim. But I'd really like to see just one that is trying to outlaw birth control for anyone. And by outlaw, I mean just that, "outlaw"....as in having it removed from the shelves so no one can get it, or making it a crime to use it. However, that is far different from attempting to eliminate it from government funding or access. And I would suspect that is what most of the 1100 you claim is trying to do.

But, if you can show one (or more), then guess what, I'm right there with you in denouncing those efforts. I'm on your side on that one. I want birth control easily and readily available for anyone who wants to buy it and use it.

As far as funding poor children's survival, I have no problem with it, but if the government is going to fund their survival, then the government has every right to impose controls on the sex life of that woman as well. The same would apply to the fathers of those children. Identify them, and since they are not providing for the children they create, then they are forcibly given vasectomies or their tubes are tied when their limit of kids is reached. If you want the kids funded, then you also have the right to determine the number of kids that can be funded.

I'm fully aware of how harsh and draconian that sounds. I didn't say they couldn't have kids. What I'm saying is that if the government (taxpayers) are paying for them, then the government also has the right to determine how many she can have. Once that number is reached, then her tubes are tied. Same thing for the fathers. She has NO right to keep popping out kids when others are forced to pay for them. If she, or he, doesn't like that prospect, then they better make sure that they take the proper precautions to make sure the kids are created in the first place. Birth control is not outrageously expensive, and even someone making minimum wage can afford it.

I had my little wagon fixed a long time ago after we had the number of kids we wanted (two). I thought after that, my wife and I might have sex more often...now I think she just wanted to make sure I was out of the gene pool. (Yeah, I know, I'm leaving myself wide open on that one. It's okay, I can take it.)

Second to last paragraph should have read "aren't created". My typo.

ConservativeNotRepublican

Wow, I thought ristricting rights was against conservative values. You seem fine with regulating other people and their procreation.

But, you bring up exactly the point I make.

You can't advocate regulating procreation and advocate starving them to death.

Bosslimo: Can you elaborate a bit more. Exactly what rights am I restricting??

I thought ristricting rights was against conservative values. You seem fine with regulating other people and their procreation.

If I'm the one paying for their kids, then I absolutely have a right to regulate their procreation. They have no right to demand I pay for their irresponsibility. Tell the person signing your paycheck that you don't think they have any right to expect a certain standard of behavior from you and see what happens.

If by rights, you mean that I wouldn't allow someone to have as many kids as they want, when I'm the one having to pay for them, then I'll plead guilty. As I pointed out, I didn't say they couldn't have any kids, I just said there should be a limit on the number, based on the fact that they have demonstrated that they are not capable of adequately providing for them. If that's unreasonable, then so be it.

I think my position is far more reasonable than allowing someone to be completely without personal responsibility for their own actions. For anyone who is able to properly care for their kids and pay their own way, then they can have as many kids as they want. Since they are paying for it, it's none of my business how many they have. More power to them.

But for someone who can't pay the freight for their own kids, then (If I were King) , I'd say three would be the limit. That is an average number of kids (give or take one) for many people. So it's not as if the number I would impose is akin to a Chinese one child policy. (And the Chinese, as far as I know, have no saftey net like welfare, but I could be wrong about that, so they are paying for their kids)

Upon the birth of that third child, if they are on welfare, then they get their tubes tied or must submit to birth control injections and take a reduction in their welfare payment to cover the cost. They must comply or lose their welfare payment. If they don't comply, they will be evicted from their public housing and their kids will become wards of the state. If a man has three kids on welfare, he gets a vasectomy with the same payment stipulations. Freedom also means responsibility, and that responsibility starts with being able to take care of your own family financially.

You have NO RIGHT to make me pay for the irresponsibility of someone else.

By the way, I was hoping that you would produce one of those birth control bills you were talking about. I am prepared to write whomever is proposing such legislation and tell them they're an idiot.

As I said, I'm on your side on that one.

Wait, you are confusing your money with government money.

Even the Bible teaches you to render to Caesar what is Caesar's.

Once you've paid your taxes, it is no longer your money.

Let's see what rights you advocate restricting.

Since you are a staunch supporter of the republican party, then you obviously share the values they adhere to.

Right off the bat, you advocate restricting abortion.

Voter Rights- Republicans in many states have written stricter voting laws.

Collective Bargaining- Oh, I know it isn't a right, it's a law, correct? Name a right that isn't a law. Taken away by republicans in Wisconsin.

I did not say that any of the legislation was banning birth control. But, since you brought it up,

Blunt Amendment

Although Obama's contraception mandate includes a broad exemption for churches and faith-based employers, Senate Republicans argued on Thursday that requiring any employer, even a non-religious one, to cover health services that they oppose is an attack on religious freedom.

That one there was a whopper! Talk about restrictions! An employer would have the right to prevent contraception if he thought it was morally wrong. Care to explain to me how anyone could prove that the employer was telling the truth?

You wanted a bill, there ya go.

And, please tell me where you are on the food chain to be able to judge others? How is it you get to decide how many offsprings a woman can have? Theres millions more paying taxes, just like you.

How about majority rules? Yeah, lets let the majority who pay taxes just like you do decide that, shall we?

I noticed in the Blunt bill, there was no ifs ands or buts regarding who has to take a permission slip to their boss to get healthcare coverage. No question of income at all.

Wonder when it would "draw a line" if the Blunt bill passed. Could you imagine going to your boss and ask if you could have another child? Since pregnancy is a health issue, that boss could decide, like you, that it would be morally wrong for them to have a child if he thought they couldn't afford it. On the opposite side, what if you went to your boss and asked for contraceptives? Then boss decides its morally wrong and you have children, even though you can't afford it.

Please, do not tell me you advocate freedom on one hand and wish to supress rights on the other.

Bosslimo:

Once you've paid your taxes, it is no longer your money.

Let's not get too Clintonesque here shall we. You're technically correct, it's no longer my money. But using your logic, since it's no longer my money, does that somehow negate my right to either support or oppose how it's spent?? I don't think so. But I'll give you credit for trying.

Since you are a staunch supporter of the republican party

Incorrect, I am not a Republican. I may agree with them on a few issues, but I am an idependent conservative, not a Republican. I disagree with the Republicans on creating the TSA, the Patriot Act, the Medicare drug give away, their expansion and growth of government overall, not to mention their run away deficit spending. In addition, I'm against their amnesty for illegal aliens, and their failure to secure the borders. I view Republicans to be liars and hypocrites.

So, I rattled off 8 major issues right off the top of my head where I disagree with Republicans vehemently. Just out of curiosity, can you name 8 where you disagree with the left.?? As you can guess, my disagreements are because they are not conservative enough; yours can be because the left is not liberal enough if you wish. The only stipulation that I make is that your disagreements with the left will be so personally objectionable to you so as to prevent you from voting for the person on the left.

I haven't voted for a single incumbent Republican office holder in the last two national elections. Come November, it will be 3, as I will not be voting for my Republican congressman (he goes to my church), my Republican senator, or the Republican nominee for president. Beyond that, I didn't vote for the current Republican governor of Tennessee either (he also goes to my church when he's home and not in Nashville) and I voted for the 2nd term of the Democrat governor of Tennessee when he ran.

What was that you were saying about me being a Republican??

Right off the bat, you advocate restricting abortion.

Restricting that so-called right (made up out of thin air by a liberal SC) means a child will live. How terrible!! /s I will compromise on rape, incest, and life of the mother. I can't make this point often enough: Liberals always claim to be about compromise. It's a lie of the left. They are not about compromise or choice. But, just to show you I'm consistent, I'll concede that is one right (Supreme Court given, not Constitutionally written) that I would indeed restrict. So ya got me on one. Touche.

Voter Rights- Republicans in many states have written stricter voting laws.

Yes and those laws, for the most part are to make sure that the people voting are who they say they are. The lie of the left is that it disenfranchises the poor. Baloney. The poor can not get a welfare check or any other government befefit without proof of identity in some form. They can use that same ID at the voting booth. Your argument is false.

Collective Bargaining- Oh, I know it isn't a right, it's a law, correct? Name a right that isn't a law. Taken away by republicans in Wisconsin.

Oh really now?? Hmmm, well since it's a law, that law can be changed can't it?? And that law was in fact changed, wasn't it?? I'm not a lawyer, but I would submit there is a large technical difference between a law passed at the local level, and a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

But the larger point is that since the law can be changed at the local level, it is only a right as long as the law is not changed. Wisconsin changed its law. When a law is passed, it does not mean that whatever was written in the law is now written in stone for now and evermore. Again, nice try, but your argument doesn't pass the common sense test. (And no, I'm not saying that you don't have common sense, I'm just saying that in this instance, a little more thought about your argument would have revealed the flaw in it: As I just pointed out ;-)

The Blunt Amendment: I disagee with it. As I said, I'm on your side on this one. BUT!! I also side with those established religious entities that object on their beliefs. That INCLUDES the insurance companies controlled by those organizations. Birth control is NOT a right, and really isn't very expensive either. Fluke was lying when she said three thousand dollars a year, in addition to the fact that it is readily available at reduced costs from almost every health department in the country. Just a little fact that Fluke left out. If an insurance company wants to cover it, I have no problem with it. If they don't, then the government should not force them to. Period. That takes away the choice and right of the insurance company to decide what they do or don't want to cover.

But again, Obama does NOT want to compromise. He wants to be force the insurance companies run by religious organizations to provide birth control regardless of their beliefs. Funny, there's that word compromise again: Along with yet another example where the liberal leadership is not willing to compromise. Funny that. (You'll also notice Obama started walking backwards on that pretty quickly once it got out what he really wanted to do)

And, please tell me where you are on the food chain to be able to judge others?

I am entitled to my opinion just like everyone else. I have freedom of speech, just as everyone else does. That's where I get my authority. I posted on another thread just yesterday that liberals don't like to be judged by anyone about anything, yet have no problem passing judgement themselves about everything. Funny how that works. Using you logic, I guess the left has no leg to stand on about spending on the military or wars. They should just keep their mouth shut. After all, it's not their money right??

Again, since I am forced by threat of jail to pay my taxes, I get to have an opinion about how the money is spent, and also to protest that spending if it goes against my beliefs...just as you do. If nothing else, on that, at least, I'm sure we can agree.

How about majority rules? Yeah, lets let the majority who pay taxes just like you do decide that, shall we?

Actually, our Republic was set up to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority. That's why it is so hard to get things done in Washington. (well, at least if you follow the rules as they are supposed to be followed, and not rewritten as you go along to allow your side to prevail, as was done with Obamacare..which, by the way, is going to be overturned.)

As Ben Franklin said: "A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for lunch."

Majority rules has to be tempered with a brake to prevent the majority from always denying the minority. Hey, maybe that's a second thing we can agree on?? It might be a record.

I noticed in the Blunt bill, there was no ifs ands or buts regarding who has to take a permission slip to their boss to get healthcare coverage. No question of income at all.

As I said, I am against the Blunt amendment. Again, I'm on your side on this one. Sometimes you just won't take yes for an answer will you??

Please, do not tell me you advocate freedom on one hand and wish to supress rights on the other.

Please point out one right in the Bill of Rights that FORCES someone through taxation to give to someone else (wealth redistribution) for their own personal gratification of sex or child birth. It does not exist. Your argument is flawed. I have no Constitutional obligation to pay for someone else's desire to have as many kids as they want. However, there are laws that require that. And, as discussed earlier, these laws can be changed, just as the were in 96 under Bill Clinton. Welfare is NOT a right, nor an entitlement, nor a license to allow the recipient class to demand whatever they want of those that are providing the funds for their livelihood. It is a law. The welfare class should damn well be thanking those that pay for them. But most are far too arrogant to even consider such a thing, as most believe they are entitled to that money. They're wrong. It's only an entitlement as long as the law says it is.

Do you live in Red Bud? Or maybe Prairie du Rocher.....Ruma......Chester......Columbia? I'm pretty sure I have family out that way.

So, what are they waiting for?

Kitmao,

They're working with a tax and finance attorney, and a CPA, to set up trusts that insure income for life, but still leave cash with which to play. This can take time to set limits, gather consensus, and collect things like SSN's and signatures. I have to go through this each year for signatories to church accounts, and usually takes two months, based on the paperwork and votes required for each new church board. They are just trying to be cautious.

Hey, 4th down,

Put your welfare loving lips on my all American ass ! I'm NOT from the South and know most can tell the difference between earned SS and welfare. But of course, now a lot of welfare trypes are getting SS by working the system. But of course you already know that.

I haven't read all the comments but Laura, you realize she's Haitian? I understand what you mean though and it's a sad thing to see all the Haitians in tent cities and without usable water or even a working infrastructure or jobs since the earthquake.

I'm curious as to the situation she's in that brings her here. Many are stuck without jobs, without hope. I'm not sure how long I'd want to stick around living on a tectonic line.

If you flash a $165 mil lotto ticket, im pretty sure those lawyers/finacial advisor would be willing to work a bit of overtime. The sooner they get you ready the sooner they get their fat bonus.

It would only take a few days to set up a trust. Investment vehicles will come later, now, they just need to claim the lump sum to begin garnering interest revenue.

wabyrant4,

So you want to risk $165miilion for the sake of a few $1000's interest? I would rather spend that interest AND a few thousand more to assure that what I set up was what I wanted and could withstand any challenge.

Bill, at an annual interest rate of just 1% you are talking $1.65 million in one year. Hardly chump change even with other opportunity's with higher potential returns. Obviously with the FDIC insurance limits one would hope that that they seek financial and tax advice to minimize exposure.

The challenge will be finding the right advisors.

lol.

What a generous soul. I guess as long as your close friends don't exceed a million or so and your family members weigh in at less than a hundred thousand, you'll be doing ok.

Unclaimed lottery winnings got to the state treasury.

NC: Touche! This is why, as long as I can understand what someone is trying to say, that I don't get all bent out of shape about typos or common grammatical errors. It's just too petty.

@NC ~ I'm a grammar snob too but even I know a typo when I see one. You should see someone about removing that stick from your butt.

Spell checker sees both "got" and "go" as correct.

Unless someone did a bit of research, they wouldn't understand that NC was only giving Dave a bit of mild payback for an admonishment Dave gave NC on another thread regarding a typo that NC had made. As the late Paul Harvey would say....Now you know the rest of the story.

States rights. But don't tell or Obama will shut them down.

I guess it used to be that in every states lotto you can NOT claim it anonyms.
As the state don't want it be a chance that a declared winner is not real and the funds
are actualy stolen by the lottery commission. or rumers among players that the state is lying about
this week winner instead of rolling it over to the next week if none won.

Some states want to let creditors and relatives know about your good fortune, before they abandon your debt? Actually, it's called ADVERTISING! The common man wins!!! If Mitt Romney won, you'ld never hear about it, just such bad press to have the rich get richer on a poor man's game.

Tonyp... Good point, That is why game shows make it a point that everyone sees that the prize could be won.

They also remember where they placed their ticket without causing a scene.

Anyone differ with that thinking?

Why do you think there are 4 different fathers, and if she has kids over 18, they either have criminal records or kids of their own? What do you base this own, besides imagination?

And, I bet that two are children she had with an ex-husband, two are children of the ex-husband who is now in jail, two belong to her druggie sister, and one is a grandchild.

Further, I will bet that she has some untreated mental illness that caused her to want the attention and/or that the numbers were the ones chosen by her co-workers but she never bought the ticket because she has 7 children she is supporting despite being mentally ill, and she expected no one to catch her because it wasn't likely that the numbers would win.

But, you know, winning this "bet" is about as likely as winning the lottery, so is there a reason we are speculating?

So much for not casting the first stone...

I know many young women with 4-5 or more children. All married, but a few heart-beats away from being single, either from divorce or death of their husbands. And you expect today's lazy press to make THAT distinction?

Your remarks and attitudes mark you as sinners.

Happy Easter.

@Bill Marvell

AMen to that and HAPPY EASTER right back at you.

You make a lot of sense Larry. Kudos to you (not sarcasm). So if we are willing to let our fellow Americans suffer then we would have to stop supporting all other countries as well. Then what would happen to this world? As much as I do not condone using welfare as a career, some people need it at times and have paid their taxes, so they should be able to use it. I also find it interesting that some think welfare is a way to get rich, these people are lucky to pay the bills, not to mention the funds do not go up per child in some states unless that child was born over two years after getting on welfare, or they already had the child. Our government is the problem, they are too busy helping those who are not from here and other countries because we are the world savior. I cannot believe how so many people take the happy story and revert back to the who knows what story, be it false or not. Leave the Wilson comments to the Wilson story and be happy for the anonymous winners here. Can't everyone just get along in these discussions? Or at least keep in mind what Thumper said, "If you can't say nothin nice, don't say nothin at all!"

Congratulations to the winners. I hope you are going to live life to it's fullest from this day forward.