Why doesnt the government mandate or subsidize daycare?

[nehalem256]

Since you lack life experiences, I will give you a real life example.

Man and woman had been married for a few years and had two children between the ages of 2 and 4.

The wife goes to a store with her mother. On the way home a drunk driver swerves into oncoming traffic, hitting the car head on. The mother-in-law was killed, and the wife was critically injured to the point where she spent 4 months in a hospital.

Dad has to work his 50 - 70 hour a week job, and try to find someone to watch the kids 5 - 7 days a week, and while the wife is recovering in the hospital.

That dad was me.

Sometimes bad things happen in life that are out of our control.

And this suggest to you that we should provide childcare for women who choose to have a child out of wedlock why?

*Note that the situation I descrive includes >50% of all child births to women under 30.

 

[Texashiker]

we should provide childcare for women who choose to have a child out of wedlock why?

Why should it matter if the parents are married?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Idiots!

It is not the government's business to take care of day care for anyone.

If you want that, then why not go all the way and get a government license to have a child. Then at birth the child is turned over to the government to be raised till that child is 18 years old. Weekly report will be sent to the parents on their child's progress.

Idiots!

Presently it is not.

The overall benefits to society is to have the child properly educated and a parent as a functioning member of society..

The payback to the government is much more than the initial outlay.

 

[CycloWizard]

We already provide public housing, food stamps and health care for people below the poverty level.

Two wrongs don't make a right, so why would four?

Why not provide daycare so the people that want to work can?

Why not let people do a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether they should work? Catering to every want of every person in our society is perhaps the single largest reason we are in such a crappy position right now. If I want to work at a job that pays nothing but drive a $100k car, why don't you subsidize that as well? It's ridiculous to suggest that we should subsidize such things just because someone wants them.

 

[Texashiker]

It is not the government's business to take care of day care for anyone.

Why are we providing food stamps, public housing, transportation to and from the doctors office and health insurance to the needy?

Do you know someone on medicare? Did you know the government will pay you for your mileage to take that person to the doctor and back home?

Why not let people do a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether they should work? .

That is one reason why we have so many people living in public housing and getting food stamps. Daycare makes it not worth their time to work.

 

[rudder]

Neighborhood kids growing up unsupervised - joining gangs and learning vandalism

Neighborhood kids becoming educated and learning to respect others property and contributing to society down the road.

Take your choice.

These outcomes do not depend on how much money a community gets from the government. If this were the case, Washington D.C. which pays $17,000 per year per student should not have an issue with juvenile crime, drug use, or gangs. There is no gang problem in the community I live in and spending per student is a fraction of what is spent in D.C.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah because 50% of marriages are abusive :\

If your happiness involves poverty for you and your children then sure I guess divorce is good option... but somehow I doubt that is true.

Step right up and see your reading comprehension fail right here folks!

I dont seem to recall saying 50% of marriages are abusive. No wonder you fail so much in every post you make. You cant even grasp simple reading.

 

[nehalem256]

Step right up and see your reading comprehension fail right here folks!

I dont seem to recall saying 50% of marriages are abusive. No wonder you fail so much in every post you make. You cant even grasp simple reading.

I take it you do not understand sarcasm.

So you would agree the sizeable numbers of people are CHOOSING to get divorced even though they are not abused.

And that therefore these people are CHOOSING poverty for the sake of their happiness :\

 

[Lithium381]

If the government truly wanted to help the middle class, why not subsidize daycare?

I know families that are forced to make a decision, the mom stay at home with the children, or pay just about everything she makes to daycare.

My step daughter was working for a local doctors office. When she added everything up, just about every penny she made was going to daycare. What incentive do people in that situation have to stay in the work force?

I hate to say this, but when the mother stops working, their income level drops so that the family could draw food stamps. With 2 children, my step daughter was right at the border of drawing food stamps.

Should the government subsidize daycare and let people work, or subsidize food stamps and let people stay home?

At least in the work force they are paying something in social security, hopefully paying something into medicare/medicaid and contributing something to society.

Good pst. I've been suggesting this for a while now, it would be a significant step to helping lower-class famileis get back on their feet

 

[Ninjahedge]

Why are you afraid to answer the question?

If abortion is not immoral then...

If someone is unable to care for a child why shouldnt they get an abortion?

Hmmm...

Visitor Messages Statistics Friends Contact Info
nehalem256 has not made any friends yet

 

[a777pilot]

Why are we providing food stamps, public housing, transportation to and from the doctors office and health insurance to the needy?

That's easy to answer.

This is the way the Democrats ensure that there are an ever growing and permanent large group of voters dependent on the government that will keep the Democrats in power. Basically they are slaves. Slaves trading their votes for minimal food, housing and medical care.

How fucking sad.

Think it through.

 

[Ninjahedge]

There are two ways to finance this, and it is weird the plans that are avaialble depending on where you work and what your job gets.

One is a pre-tax plan that allows you to put money away into an account, pre-tax, to pay for "child care expenses". I believe that amount was something like $3500/yr for one, and $5900/yr per couple (which made no real sense).

I believe a permutation of this should be done, allowing a certain amount to be put away PER CHILD (not per employee) based on regional day care costs. Allowing $6K is a little weird when areas range from $700-$1500 per month for day care NOT held in an overcrowded church basement with a bunch of ESL nannies.

The second is allowing actual restitution to parents when their income goes down too low. It is to our benefit that the kid gets care, and that the parent CAN work, rather than us supporting them to stay home. (BTW, NOT paying them at home only makes the societal penalty worse. No matter how much you say that "we should not encourage them", history has proven that just letting them fend for themselves lowers the quality of life for all in many areas, and in turn effects all but the completely economically isolated).

The program Texas is suggesting needs to be more than a simple government handout. There needs to be certain limitations in order to discourage the single mother from having 10 kids and having them all go to day care on our bill, but it also needs to encourage someone getting out there and WORKING. Contributing to society, and instilling a similar work ethic in their kids.

Welfare and other programs need to be a developmental aid first, and a safety net second. Unfortunately, all we get is a safety net that everyone fights over.

 

[nehalem256]

I believe a permutation of this should be done, allowing a certain amount to be put away PER CHILD (not per employee) based on regional day care costs. Allowing $6K is a little weird when areas range from $700-$1500 per month for day care NOT held in an overcrowded church basement with a bunch of ESL nannies.

So say you have 2 children.

That would run you $1400-3000/month, or $16,800-$36,000/year. It should be obvious what the problem will be for low income wage earners.

 

[CycloWizard]

That is one reason why we have so many people living in public housing and getting food stamps. Daycare makes it not worth their time to work.

So your argument is that working is not worth it to the individual, but it is worth it to the rest of us? Does not compute. Do we really need more unskilled laborers to enter the work force right now?

 

[Ninjahedge]

That's easy to answer.

This is the way the Democrats ensure that there are an ever growing and permanent large group of voters dependent on the government that will keep the Democrats in power. Basically they are slaves. Slaves trading their votes for minimal food, housing and medical care.

How fucking sad.

Think it through.

No, that is rather ignorant.

There is a contingent that are supported just like that, but it is also a poor investment as voter turnout among that sector can be abysmally low.

The thing is, the less poor your districts poor are, the more attractive your district is. You raise the bottom and you have more of a chance of moving up.

Otherwise you almost get a medieval striation where you get your noble class and everyone else.....

 

[Ninjahedge]

So your argument is that working is not worth it to the individual, but it is worth it to the rest of us? Does not compute. Do we really need more unskilled laborers to enter the work force right now?

No.

He is saying that if they work, they get paid less than social programs, so why bother.

That does not merit getting rid of the social programs though, as getting rid of them will increase crime, desperation, and health issues.


texas is suggesting a shift in where the funds should be allocated in order to optimize their net result, not an abolishment of them.

 

[IGBT]

why should the tax payer pay for your spawn?? you wanted kids. YOU pay for em.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see why government should be subsidizing life choices. Some choices end up hurting, others end up helping. It's not up to the government to ensure equal outcomes.

If there is ever going to be meaningful, substantial reform of medicaid then in that specific context subsidies can be positive. I favor a WPA like program which by its nature requires someone looking after the kids. Of course this would be part of a comprehensive plan to transition to a paying job.

 

[EagleKeeper]

why should the tax payer pay for your spawn?? you wanted kids. YOU pay for em.

Taxpayer right now is already paying.

What is being offered is an opportunity to reduce that cost over the mid-term and keep it lower over the long term.

INVESTMENT

 

[Uhtrinity]

It seems to me that women (and single dads) are locked into a trap of poverty.

That is the truth. Six years ago I chose to work at the school my son attends (or he attends the school I work at). The pay isn't as good as what I would earn elsewhere, but once you factor out what I would be spending on daycare it evens out.

 

[Texashiker]

So your argument is that working is not worth it to the individual, but it is worth it to the rest of us? Does not compute.

Up to a certain income level, people are better off staying in low income housing and drawing food stamps then going to work.

One of the biggest economic factors preventing low wage earners from working is day care.

Do we really need more unskilled laborers to enter the work force right now?

Would you rather someone stay at home playing on the internet, or have that person flipping burgers, or stocking the shelves at the local grocery store?

Even if the person is earning minimum wage, its better then earning no wage at all.

 

[nehalem256]

Taxpayer right now is already paying.

What is being offered is an opportunity to reduce that cost over the mid-term and keep it lower over the long term.

INVESTMENT

Or you could go after the root cause of the issue which is young, uneducated, unmarried people having children they cannot afford.

 

[Uhtrinity]

And this is why you should only have children in marriage.

What you really want is a subsidization of feminism.

Do you realize people are single parents for reasons other than that? I was widowed over 8 years ago because of cancer. To make my situation work I chose to work in education to avoid daycare. My son goes to school with me and at the end of the day he goes home with me, but I realize not everyone has that option.

I also turned down a job a few years ago with the FBI doing IT tech support partially because it was tech support and they are super paranoid, but mostly because there would not have been much of a monetary gain due to extra daycare costs.

 

[nehalem256]

One of the biggest economic factors preventing low wage earners from working is day care.

One of the biggest economic factors preventing unmarried low wage earners from working is day care.

I fixed that for you.

Isnt it funny that feminists say women dont need a man, but yet they always seem to need THE man?

 

[nehalem256]

Do you realize people are single parents for reasons other than that? I was widowed over 8 years ago because of cancer. To make my situation work I chose to work in education to avoid daycare. My son goes to school with me and at the end of the day he goes home with me, but I realize not everyone has that option.

I also turned down a job a few years ago with the FBI doing IT tech support partially because it was tech support and they are super paranoid, but mostly because there would not have been much of a monetary gain due to extra daycare costs.

And how many people do you think become single parents, because there spouse dies?

And you do realize that if that was the primary reason that people became single parents it might be a lot easier to extract sympathy and support?