universal child care?

[dazzleman]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Currently, society has accepted the responsibility to educate children from Kindergarten to 12th grade.  It's up to the parents to do the rest.  I don't agree with pushing more responsibility off onto society rather than parents, because the more government tries to raise people's kids, the less parents do, and the worse off the kids are.  Government is NOT the answer in this case.  Government cannot do the job of raising kids, nor should fellow taxpayers be expected to pay for it.

[opebo]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

[John Dibble]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

You know, the working class does pay taxes you know - otherwise we wouldn't have money coming out of our paychecks and we wouldn't have to file taxes once a year. If you think that only the rich would be paying, you're delusional.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

This is OPEBO of course he's delusional.

[opebo]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

You know, the working class does pay taxes you know - otherwise we wouldn't have money coming out of our paychecks and we wouldn't have to file taxes once a year. If you think that only the rich would be paying, you're delusional.

It would certainly be easy enough to devise such a tax system, if not for the fact that the rich are too powerful under the current system.

[John Dibble]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

You know, the working class does pay taxes you know - otherwise we wouldn't have money coming out of our paychecks and we wouldn't have to file taxes once a year. If you think that only the rich would be paying, you're delusional.

It would certainly be easy enough to devise such a tax system, if not for the fact that the rich are too powerful under the current system.

Since reality contradicts your point by your own admission, your point is moot.

[opebo]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

You know, the working class does pay taxes you know - otherwise we wouldn't have money coming out of our paychecks and we wouldn't have to file taxes once a year. If you think that only the rich would be paying, you're delusional.

It would certainly be easy enough to devise such a tax system, if not for the fact that the rich are too powerful under the current system.

Since reality contradicts your point by your own admission, your point is moot.

The whole point of any political action I suggest is to reduce the power of the rich, Dibble.  Of course accomplishing such a goal will be difficult, but I think not impossible, as evidenced by some small level of well being for workers acheived in western Europe and in the US during the 1930's-1970's hiatus.

[WalterMitty]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

You know, the working class does pay taxes you know - otherwise we wouldn't have money coming out of our paychecks and we wouldn't have to file taxes once a year. If you think that only the rich would be paying, you're delusional.

It would certainly be easy enough to devise such a tax system, if not for the fact that the rich are too powerful under the current system.

Since reality contradicts your point by your own admission, your point is moot.

The whole point of any political action I suggest is to reduce the power of the rich, Dibble.  Of course accomplishing such a goal will be difficult, but I think not impossible, as evidenced by some small level of well being for workers acheived in western Europe and in the US during the 1930's-1970's hiatus.

you simpleton.  are you a masochist?

[angus]

would you support universal, free child care for all working parents?

yes, i would.

I'm a working parent and I'd rather my intelligent, well-educated, loving wife care for my toddler son than a stranger. 

and free?  I'm not sure we have a Law of Conservation of Money, in the sense that we have a law of conservation of matter/energy, but nothing's free, pal.  Free just means that I'm forced by Law to pay for something rather than being allowed to choose it voluntarily.

No, I'd rather a parent be able to choose to allow his/her spouse to stay home for a few years and stay with that toddler.  In this way a person who truly loves the child will raise it.  Moreover, the revenue which the government would have collected to send that child to "day care" may be saved and invested in such a way as to help pay for that child's university education, or vacations, or German lessons, or Piano lessons, or whatever the parents in a free and open society choose to spend that money on.

Not that I have anything against day care.  It just ought to be a personal choice. 

It takes a village?  I don't think so hillary.   You need only Love.  Having two committed parents, both of whom have PhDs in science from a private university Back East helps, too, and having a Wal-Mart in the community is sure a blessing, and of course a little money doesn't hurt.  But all you really need is love.


"There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It's easy.

Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It's easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need."
  --The Beatles

[Jake]

Heh, I'm playing that song right now.

I love how this post went through a few versions too. Improved quite a bit.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

You know, the working class does pay taxes you know - otherwise we wouldn't have money coming out of our paychecks and we wouldn't have to file taxes once a year. If you think that only the rich would be paying, you're delusional.

It would certainly be easy enough to devise such a tax system, if not for the fact that the rich are too powerful under the current system.

Since reality contradicts your point by your own admission, your point is moot.

This is opebo

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'm for a lower birth rate in general. We should improve the availibiltiy of contraceptives/condoms, better sex ed and let in more middle class/educated/wealthy third worlders instead of the poor teeming masses.

[angus]

I'm for a lower birth rate in general. We should improve the availibiltiy of contraceptives/condoms, better sex ed...

I'm very much in agreement with that plan.  We're often asked the silly question "should trade be linked to human rights?" on those little quizes.  I always answer NO.  Nor would I link trade to lower birth rates, but I'd be willing to put public money into encouraging lower fertility into developing nations.  We'd get a better return on our investment than the abstinence only plans they're pushing now.  For our own nation, the second part of your post only adddresses immigration.  But more fundamentally I think we might reconsider the idea of maintaining a minimum wage, which only serves to increase employment and thereby create more welfare cases.  Free college tuition at taxpayer expense I'm endorsing as well, as higher education not only serves the manifest function of job skills preparation, but also the latent function of delaying the onset of familial obligation.  I think we'd get a pretty big bang for our buck by reversing the Reagan policy of nixing the Pell Grant to families who make more than the poverty level.

[opebo]

I'm for a lower birth rate in general. We should improve the availibiltiy of contraceptives/condoms, better sex ed...

I'm very much in agreement with that plan.

Why on earth do you people want a low birthrate?  Are you still fighting the battles of the 1960's?  The modern birthrate in much of the world is disasterously low, and the resulting population decline and aging will lead to economic dislocations far worse than anything caused by 'overpopulation'. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why on earth should any working-class voter prefer to be forced to work for an unlivable pittance than having the option of Welfare?  (of course this is a hypothetical question as welfare is already largely extinct.  Also, I'm looking for an answer other than the obvious one - he is stupid). 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, generally it doesn't.  Only in technical/vocational fields, and even then, often only ephemerally.  But I'm certainly all for free education. 

[John Dibble]

Free college tuition at taxpayer expense I'm endorsing as well,

I would prefer it be funded via state lotteries as in Georgia, and only for those who make good grades in high school.

[Bono]

Free college tuition at taxpayer expense I'm endorsing as well,

Finland tried that route of having everyone have a college degree. Now, three fourths of their population has a college degree and the unemployment amoung young people is 20%.

[Lincoln Republican]

I'm for a lower birth rate in general. We should improve the availibiltiy of contraceptives/condoms, better sex ed...

I'm very much in agreement with that plan.

Why on earth do you people want a low birthrate?  Are you still fighting the battles of the 1960's?  The modern birthrate in much of the world is disasterously low, and the resulting population decline and aging will lead to economic dislocations far worse than anything caused by 'overpopulation'. 

Opebo has made an excellent and a very accurate point regarding falling birth rates and their relationship to economies in the world.

As to universal child care, I do not support such a plan.  A plan such as this would turn into a bottomless pit of public funding, never to achieve the results advocates of these plans are looking for. 

Parents of young children should have a choice in how they want their young children cared for.  If both parents are working, let them pay for the day care of their child or children.  If one parent is working, the parent not working can care for the children.  In single parent families, the single parent should pay for the day care.

Of course, in some cases, government help is necessary for the parents or for the parent.  In those cases, the appropriate help and assistance should be granted.  Even these parents, however, should bear some of the responsibility for the funding of their children's care.

If one parent stays at home to raise the children, then this family should be given some type of tax break.  Parents who send their children to daycare, and who need assistance, should not be the only ones receiving some sort of a subsidy or tax incentive.

The Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest should be reversed.  That segment of society does not need these additional tax breaks.  This additional revenue could then be put to better use elsewhere in society.       

[Inverted Things]

The thing about low birth rates is this:

A low birthrate will necessarily mean economic hardship, as capitalism relies on an ever-expanding market.

Trumping that concern is that a low birthrate is better for the environment.

[angus]

ah, screw it.  I really don't feel comfortable asking anyone to pay for my son's daycare, and don't feel comfortable having to tell anyone no when they ask me to pay for theirs.  But this debate is going far afield.  We'll be talking about the appropriate replacement reproduction number of offspring before long, and I don't think that's where Walter was going with this.  I can certainly relate to Walter.  My parents are deceased and my wife's parents live ten thousand miles away.  And neither of us have any relatives in a five hundred mile radius within where we currently live.  And now that the boy's walking, running, talking, and just about completely weaned, she's looking to go back to work.  Pretty much as soon as he's toilet trained and can make sentences, which we think will be very soon, we'll both do nationwide job searches to find suitable gainful employment in the same market.  And at that time we'll have to look into the local daycare options.  People are affected differently when they have children.  It changes your views.  I'm trememdously more rightist than before I had a child, and recoil at the thought of authoritarianism or communalism.  I'm not so sure I want or need government involvement in this way.  But maybe Walter's circumstances are such that he's lurched leftward and toward a more collectivist viewpoint.  There are certainly advantages of shifting the burden of decision-making to The State, and turning our children over to people who do not love them.  And there are disadvantages.  And they have been examined elsewhere in this forum at great length.  There's really no wrong or right here, and we can argue all day, but it comes down to the question of wherein lies sovereignty?  I say with the individual.  I really don't expect the government to pay for my child's daycare.  And in return I don't want it exercising any control over the matter.  But I respect that there are those who don't share that view.   We surrender a bit of our liberties in the name of security every day.  For example, clearly we accept the concept of truancy.  There was a time when that was very controversial, but now every one knows that if a farmer chooses to have his 13-year-old stay home to learn chores, then a social worker will surely show up and force the child into education.  And we think that's the way it should be.  I'm not going to argue here, but I would advise my congressman against supporting such a plan, and I don't think it's a matter of greed, but rather one of personal and familial liberty.  Should the federal government take up the matter, then we will make sure to let our congress know how we feel about this and be prepared to accept majority rule.   

[Bono]

  For example, clearly we accept the concept of truancy.  There was a time when that was very controversial, but now every one knows that if a farmer chooses to have his 13-year-old stay home to learn chores, then a social worker will surely show up and force the child into education.  And we think that's the way it should be.

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

[The Dowager Mod]

When tax dollars can be better spent on even more useless military crap, screw the kids.

[opebo]

The thing about low birth rates is this:

A low birthrate will necessarily mean economic hardship, as capitalism relies on an ever-expanding market.

Trumping that concern is that a low birthrate is better for the environment.

Fair enough.  I must admit that as soon as I posted above about the birth-rates, it occured to me that my concerns were based on the assumption of the continuation of the capitalist heirarchy. 

I'm sure solutions could be found to a declining population if we were willing to radically change our power relationships.