NationStates Jolt Archive

I know plenty of you want the gov't to get out of our live completely, meaning no taxes, no social assistance and so on...but I have to say I'm against that. These things are necessary to protect the most vulnerable of our population (yes, that's up for debate:)). Something I would like the gov't to step in and do something about is subsidizing daycare. (the Canadian gov't has been promising to do so for ages and still hasn't.) I don't mean for everyone...if you can afford it, you should pay. If you are a poor, working mother/father/couple, and it sucks too much out of your wage, you should be helped. People complain that all these people are sitting on their butts collecting welfare...often working and paying all the bills AND childcare ends up making you less than you get on welfare. I'm one who CAN afford it...and I pay $1000 a month for my two girls...which is about half my income. The ONLY reason I can afford it is because my husband is working too. If it was just me, no way. I'm not saying it's too expensive....childcare workers DESERVE that money! However, if you want to see more people working, give them a break on their daycare fees...a percentage based on their income.

Whatchathink??

I think your right.

I think your right.

Hehehe...it's so nice of you to say so:). Another thing I'd like to see more of is a daycare centre set up in the same place you work (if there is enough need for it I mean). The school I work at has a daycare centre for staff (and the public), and that way you aren't paying late fees if you get stuck in traffic. Hell, let the business set it up as a charity (therefore free for us:)), and take the tax break that'd earn them........I think.....:).

I don't know what should be done about daycare, because anytime that government gets to involved in anything it becomes a mess with all people that abuse it. I know there a plenty of people that would need that.

I can only agree with that.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with subsidizing daycare as it would enable the single mother to go out, get that job, in order to perhaps one day get off any kind of subsidized assistance...but that would butt up against people like you..not some rich cat...just average working folks who can afford it, it's just a little bit pricey...now me...I'm the same way..middle class, and I can see myself saying "Hey...I got kids..I work, how come I don't get a break?"...see..and anytime you get the government involved you're bound to have abuse or inefficiency in the system. Leave it up to the private sector to devise a system.

The private sector is profit driven and by nature won't come up with a solution for the poor. "Solutions for the poor" is not a lucrative industry.

As far as abuse goes, it's not usually the poor who are the abusers. Take medicare fraud- most people don't realize that the overwheeeelming majority of fraud is PROVIDERS, not consumers. The companies who bill the government, not the people who get the services in the end. Just like the contractors who overcharge the government for putting in lifts and ramps on houses and buildings for wheelchair access- heck, look at the private companies in Iraq, it's not the Iraqis who are cheating us.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with subsidizing daycare as it would enable the single mother to go out, get that job, in order to perhaps one day get off any kind of subsidized assistance...but that would butt up against people like you..not some rich cat...just average working folks who can afford it, it's just a little bit pricey...now me...I'm the same way..middle class, and I can see myself saying "Hey...I got kids..I work, how come I don't get a break?"...see..and anytime you get the government involved you're bound to have abuse or inefficiency in the system. Leave it up to the private sector to devise a system.

I'm likely to be long in my grave before the private sector does anything about it...and they certainly won't make it affordable for the people we're talking about. So what if we feel like whining that WE should get a break too...people whine about taxes as the time, and it doesn't mean the whole system is going to break down. There are plenty of programs I'm not eligible for...GST rebates (make too much), child tax benefit (make too much) etc. Yeah, I'm middle class, and we get the dirty end of the stick...but I'm not going to carry that angst around and prevent people who are more needy than me getting benefits that could help them. Of course there will be abusers...and hopefully there will be a way to check up and make sure the abuse is kept to a minimum...but plenty of corporations abuse the system too, and they're likely to get away with millions instead of a few bucks. I'm willing to take the chance...SUBSIDIZED DAYCARE YAY:)!!

Sinuhue and I are on the same page
;)

Actually, here in the province of Quebec we have subsidized day-care since... what, 3-4 years ago. It worked pretty well, too : it cost only 5$ a day (which means 25$ a week, or only 100$ a month). The sad thing is, our new provincial government seems intent on destroying the acomplishment of its predecessor and raising the price parents have to pay to over twice or even three times that amount. Only angry parents told them what they though about it, and they only raised it to 7$ a day(35$ a week, or 140$ per month)

Personally, I think the lower the better. If there's a better way to encourage young couples who want children to go for it, I don't know it. Besides, every child should be taken care of properly, and we all know parents who can afford or manage to have someone in the house to care for the kids at all times are a minority.

Since it was open to everyone, including middle-class and the more wealthy, nobody complained. It was funded through our progressive income tax anyway, so everyone was paying according to their means through that to finance the cost of the daycare(which was of course higher than just 7$ a day).


As a side note: when Paul Martin's promised to subsidize daycare, he also said it would be based on a system similar to the one we have in our province. Wheter he actually bothers to hold up to his word remains to be seen, though.

i don't at all support using public funding for daycare. don't have babies if you can't support them on your own. if you do, that's your problem and you need to take responsibility rather than expecting others to support your mistake. the cry always goes up for single women whose husbands left them with babies, and i have zero sympathy: if you had kids without getting your own education and career first then that's your problem. it's stupid to put yourself in a position of being dependent on ANYBODY, no matter how much you love them and they love you.

i don't at all support using public funding for daycare. don't have babies if you can't support them on your own. if you do, that's your problem and you need to take responsibility rather than expecting others to support your mistake. the cry always goes up for single women whose husbands left them with babies, and i have zero sympathy: if you had kids without getting your own education and career first then that's your problem. it's stupid to put yourself in a position of being dependent on ANYBODY, no matter how much you love them and they love you.

Well said girl...well said.

Well said girl...well said.

Salishe, I'm disappointed in you...our people have always considered children to be a blessing, no matter whether their births came at an opportune time or not...and the community always pulled together to raise that child. Don't have kids if you can't support them? Only rich people should have kids? Well they better spit them out a dozen per year if they want to keep us from falling into negative population growth, which will mean a collapse of our Old Age Pension system...not to mention the rest of our taxation system. Don't punish the poor with economic sterilization. We subsidise multi-million dollar corporations...who often take all their profits overseas...why do people have such a problem with helping their fellow man?

I officially kick you out of the First Nations:).
Ok...you can stay...but be nice.

Salishe, I'm disappointed in you...our people have always considered children to be a blessing, no matter whether their births came at an opportune time or not...and the community always pulled together to raise that child. Don't have kids if you can't support them? Only rich people should have kids? Well they better spit them out a dozen per year if they want to keep us from falling into negative population growth, which will mean a collapse of our Old Age Pension system...not to mention the rest of our taxation system. Don't punish the poor with economic sterilization. We subsidise multi-million dollar corporations...who often take all their profits overseas...why do people have such a problem with helping their fellow man?


only people who can afford to support children should have them. you don't have to be rich to be able to support your kid, but if you can't support it then you are a cruel and selfish person for choosing to have that child in the first place. if you think children are such a blessing then ACT LIKE IT: show some responsibility, and only have these blessings when you can be fully worthy of them. make sure you can provide necessary child care yourself, or that you can afford to pay for it if you need somebody else to participate in care. make sure you can support your family on the income you have, and that you have enough wiggle room to get by if something goes wrong.

if you don't care enough about your kids to make sure you can support them, then you obviously aren't worthy of having those kids in the first place. making babies just because YOU want them is horrible, and expecting other people to support your family is disgusting.

i don't at all support using public funding for daycare. don't have babies if you can't support them on your own. if you do, that's your problem and you need to take responsibility rather than expecting others to support your mistake. the cry always goes up for single women whose husbands left them with babies, and i have zero sympathy: if you had kids without getting your own education and career first then that's your problem. it's stupid to put yourself in a position of being dependent on ANYBODY, no matter how much you love them and they love you.

Wow! Zero compassion. People make a mistake? They have to burn as far as Bottle is concerned. Let's hope not everyone is as heartless as you, Bottle. Otherwise you'd be in trouble the day you have to pay when a mistake backfires and you end up with more coming at you then you can handle.

Wow! Zero compassion. People make a mistake? They have to burn as far as Bottle is concerned. Let's hope not everyone is as heartless as you, Bottle. Otherwise you'd be in trouble the day you have to pay when a mistake backfires and you end up with more coming at you then you can handle.

no, you didn't read carefully enough. i don't especially WANT bad things to happen to people if they make a mistake, i simply expect them to deal with the consequences of their actions.

frankly, it wouldn't be a problem for me at all if everyone was as "heartless" as me, because i would never ask any other person to pay for my mistakes. i don't plan to ever have children, but if i were going to do so i would follow the same plan as my parents: you don't have a baby until you have a safe home in a decent neighborhood, a steady job (and a job for each parent is ideal), and $10K in the bank set aside for ONLY baby-related issues. it took my parents until they were 30 to have this stuff set up, but they refused to have a child before they were certain they could provide everything necessary for it. they even waited to have me (their first) until they had job security via their degrees, that way even if they got laid off they were sure to be able to find more work. we certainly were NOT rich during my childhood (we didn't have a TV until i was 5), but there was never any worry of them not being able to provide necessary things like childcare and health care and schooling.

also, i would hardly call bringing a life into the world just "a mistake." it's pretty much the biggest single decision most people will ever make, and if they screw it up then i don't think they should be surprised if their whole life gets messed up too. a baby is too important to take chances with. i can't believe how many people just go and have a kid because they feel like it, without thinking twice about all the things it entails. they think more about "wanting a family" than they do about what that family will want. they're welcome to be stupid however they please, but if they come asking for my money i will laugh in their face.

no, you didn't read carefully enough. i don't especially WANT bad things to happen to people if they make a mistake, i simply expect them to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I never said that you did.

only people who can afford to support children should have them. you don't have to be rich to be able to support your kid, but if you can't support it then you are a cruel and selfish person for choosing to have that child in the first place. if you think children are such a blessing then ACT LIKE IT: show some responsibility, and only have these blessings when you can be fully worthy of them. make sure you can provide necessary child care yourself, or that you can afford to pay for it if you need somebody else to participate in care. make sure you can support your family on the income you have, and that you have enough wiggle room to get by if something goes wrong.

if you don't care enough about your kids to make sure you can support them, then you obviously aren't worthy of having those kids in the first place. making babies just because YOU want them is horrible, and expecting other people to support your family is disgusting.

Right...because children born into poverty obviously can't have as fulfilling a life as those born to rich families. Please. My parents were dirt poor. We lived off reservation, so we didn't get payments from the band. My dad was a construction worker and in those years it was extremely hard to get a job... he and thousands of other construction workers did seasonal jobs and ended up on unemployment the rest of the time...and if you think you can live on unemployment, you've obviously never tried it. My mom went to work when she could, but not only was it too expensive to send us to daycare, there was no where TO send us since we lived in the country, so she was needed more at home. Despite all that, my brothers and I (there are five sibs) ALL had a good childhood, all graduated from University and are ALL working. Sometimes they couldn't afford us...and they needed help...but in the end did they suck the life out of the system? NO! They produced five hard-working, tax paying citizens and I'm certainly glad they did. Are you trying to say that we didn't deserve to be born because our parents were poor? Shame on you. If everyone waited until they were completely financially secure to have kids, no one would do it.

You give yourself as an example of people waiting....ok...then I'll admit people do it. However, not everyone CAN do the things your parents did...I applaud them for their hard work, but for many, just getting an education is out of reach.

I never said that you did.

you said that i thought people who make a mistake "should burn." i don't think that at all, unless their mistake is to jump into a fire. in that case, i don't know what else they expected to happen, and i wouldn't think the laws of thermodynamics should be suspended just for them.

people who make a mistake should take care of it themselves. if that means "burning" then fine. if it means they bounce back better than before, that's terrific. i LOVE when people make mistakes, deal with them, and end up stronger than they were before. i LOVE when mistakes turn into lessons that help people live better lives. i have nothing against people making mistakes, in fact i think it's usually a good part of a full life. i only have a problem with people expecting others to clean up their mistakes.

Right...because children born into poverty obviously can't have as fulfilling a life as those born to rich families. Please. My parents were dirt poor. We lived off reservation, so we didn't get payments from the band. My dad was a construction worker and in those years it was extremely hard to get a job... he and thousands of other construction workers did seasonal jobs and ended up on unemployment the rest of the time...and if you think you can live on unemployment, you've obviously never tried it. My mom went to work when she could, but not only was it too expensive to send us to daycare, there was no where TO send us since we lived in the country, so she was needed more at home. Despite all that, my brothers and I (there are five sibs) ALL had a good childhood, all graduated from University and are ALL working. Sometimes they couldn't afford us...and they needed help...but in the end did they suck the life out of the system? NO! They produced five hard-working, tax paying citizens and I'm certainly glad they did. Are you trying to say that we didn't deserve to be born because our parents were poor? Shame on you. If everyone waited until they were completely financially secure to have kids, no one would do it.

you don't seem to have listened to me. my parents WERE poor. they lived at the poverty line for the first 7 years of their marriage, only gradually edging over it around the time i was born. being poor has nothing to do with it, so please stop harping on that old emotive point. you can be poor but still able to provide for your responsibilities, and it is pure myth that poor people can't do that...you yourself are the one perpetuating negative myths about lower-class families by claiming one has to have tons of money to be a responsible parent, or that lower class people can't possibly better themselves or save money enough to take care of their own.

financial security means being able to provide for yourself and the family you create; if nobody is capable of that, as you suggest, then you really must be expecting people to pamper the snot out of their families. kids don't need a GameCube and PlayStation, they just need decent day care and good medical. they need a solid education. they need parents who aren't working 20 hours a day, so they can get some attention and guidance from time to time. my parents were lower class and they did just fine; it means they didn't get to have some luxuries like cable TV and eating out every week, but by showing good sense and smart priorities they made it work. they also were willing to put their own desires on hold until they knew they could do right by a child; they wanted a kid for years before they had me, but waited until they knew they could do it right.

if only more parents actually loved their kids, rather than just loving the idea of a family. if only more parents respected their children enough to support them, instead of pushing their responsibilities off on others. you're right that precious few people show good values and good preparation when having kids...if only we could work to change that, instead of telling people it's "a blessing" when they bring a life into the world that they cannot support or care for fully.

you said that i thought people who make a mistake "should burn." i don't think that at all, unless their mistake is to jump into a fire. in that case, i don't know what else they expected to happen, and i wouldn't think the laws of thermodynamics should be suspended just for them.

people who make a mistake should take care of it themselves. if that means "burning" then fine. if it means they bounce back better than before, that's terrific. i LOVE when people make mistakes, deal with them, and end up stronger than they were before. i LOVE when mistakes turn into lessons that help people live better lives. i have nothing against people making mistakes, in fact i think it's usually a good part of a full life. i only have a problem with people expecting others to clean up their mistakes.

In any case, speaking realistically (because people are going to keep having kids, right or wrong), which would you prefer? A single mother/father can not afford to work AND send their child to daycare, so they languish on social assistance instead. It makes them unproductive (and often depressed, because for MOST people, work is dignity), and keeps them poor (because no one is ever going to get rich on social assistance, which is as it should be). Or, the government SUBSIDIZES (re: pays a percentage based on the person's income, not necessarily 100%), which allows that person to work and remain productive. By the way, most people only need childcare until the child is school age, so we're talking 5 years at the most. It works out to way less than the social assistance payments.

In any case, speaking realistically (because people are going to keep having kids, right or wrong), which would you prefer? A single mother/father can not afford to work AND send their child to daycare, so they languish on social assistance instead. It makes them unproductive (and often depressed, because for MOST people, work is dignity), and keeps them poor (because no one is ever going to get rich on social assistance, which is as it should be). Or, the government SUBSIDIZES (re: pays a percentage based on the person's income, not necessarily 100%), which allows that person to work and remain productive. By the way, most people only need childcare until the child is school age, so we're talking 5 years at the most. It works out to way less than the social assistance payments.

i would prefer the government "subsidize" them in the form of a loan; the parents can have the help they need for those 5 years, and then they can continue to pay off that cost for as long as it takes, so that nobody is, in the end, supporting their family for them. i don't support sending the message that if you have kids you can't support the government will take money from other people to help you out. parents who show better judgment shouldn't have to pay for those who fail to use good foresight when planning their families.

you don't seem to have listened to me. my parents WERE poor. they lived at the poverty line for the first 7 years of their marriage, only gradually edging over it around the time i was born. being poor has nothing to do with it, so please stop harping on that old emotive point. you can be poor but still able to provide for your responsibilities, and it is pure myth that poor people can't do that...you yourself are the one perpetuating negative myths about lower-class families by claiming one has to have tons of money to be a responsible parent, or that lower class people can't possibly better themselves or save money enough to take care of their own.

financial security means being able to provide for yourself and the family you create; if nobody is capable of that, as you suggest, then you really must be expecting people to pamper the snot out of their families. kids don't need a GameCube and PlayStation, they just need decent day care and good medical. they need a solid education. they need parents who aren't working 20 hours a day, so they can get some attention and guidance from time to time. my parents were lower class and they did just fine; it means they didn't get to have some luxuries like cable TV and eating out every week, but by showing good sense and smart priorities they made it work. they also were willing to put their own desires on hold until they knew they could do right by a child; they wanted a kid for years before they had me, but waited until they knew they could do it right.

if only more parents actually loved their kids, rather than just loving the idea of a family. if only more parents respected their children enough to support them, instead of pushing their responsibilities off on others. you're right that precious few people show good values and good preparation when having kids...if only we could work to change that, instead of telling people it's "a blessing" when they bring a life into the world that they cannot support or care for fully.

You are confusing the issue...we are NOT talking about families having kids and expecting someone else to raise them...or buy them gamecubes and crap like that. No one is asking for the state to provide clothes, food, and entertainment for their kids. Do you seriously think subsidized daycare is going to do that? Of course not...it is exactly what it sounds like....someone to watch the child while you are at work. Period. The main responsibility is yours. Good for your parents for waiting, but I don't think everyone should have to do exactly as they did.

And YOU give me a break with your "poor people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like so and so...if you don't you're just plain lazy". There are many reasons people can't get out of their rut that have nothing to do with their ambition...like mental illness, or disabilities, or living in communities with few job opportunities, lack of education, etc. Yes, some can rise above all of this, but for others they NEED A LITTLE HELP. Emphasis on the little, because that's what we're talking about.

you yourself are the one perpetuating negative myths about lower-class families by claiming one has to have tons of money to be a responsible parent

My whole point was that my family DIDN'T have tonnes of money, and they WERE responsible. They raised us well. Just because they didn't wait until they had 10K in the bank (which was YOUR condition to having children), doesn't mean they were acting irresponsibly.

You are confusing the issue...we are NOT talking about families having kids and expecting someone else to raise them...or buy them gamecubes and crap like that. No one is asking for the state to provide clothes, food, and entertainment for their kids. Do you seriously think subsidized daycare is going to do that? Of course not...it is exactly what it sounds like....someone to watch the child while you are at work. Period. The main responsibility is yours. Good for your parents for waiting, but I don't think everyone should have to do exactly as they did.

And YOU give me a break with your "poor people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like so and so...if you don't you're just plain lazy". There are many reasons people can't get out of their rut that have nothing to do with their ambition...like mental illness, or disabilities, or living in communities with few job opportunities, lack of education, etc. Yes, some can rise above all of this, but for others they NEED A LITTLE HELP. Emphasis on the little, because that's what we're talking about.



My whole point was that my family DIDN'T have tonnes of money, and they WERE responsible. They raised us well. Just because they didn't wait until they had 10K in the bank (which was YOUR condition to having children), doesn't mean they were acting irresponsibly.

if parents can support their family without 10K in the bank then that's great. but if they ask for help paying for ANYTHING for their kids, including daycare, then they clearly didn't plan well. i don't see why anybody else should pay for it.

if you have a disability or, for any reason, cannot support children, then DON'T HAVE THEM. if you choose to have them then don't whine that other people should help you take care of them. it is your choice to have kids, and your responsibility to care for them. have them whenever and however you please, just don't expect anybody else to pay for your choice.

i don't really care if people have children irresponsibly, as long as they don't expect me to foot the bill. they can be dumb, and start their kids' lives poorly, and fail to provide the advantages all children should be able to attain, and that's their choice. but they don't get to expect me to compensate for their negligence.

i would prefer the government "subsidize" them in the form of a loan; the parents can have the help they need for those 5 years, and then they can continue to pay off that cost for as long as it takes, so that nobody is, in the end, supporting their family for them. i don't support sending the message that if you have kids you can't support the government will take money from other people to help you out. parents who show better judgment shouldn't have to pay for those who fail to use good foresight when planning their families.

Um...ever hear of public education? Public healthcare? Public libraries, public playgrounds, public community programs, public infrastructure....hey, I may never need ANY of those things if I am childless, healthy as an ox, illiterate, don't have a car, etc...but I pay my taxes to fund those things ANYWAY. The government takes money away from people and redistributes it ALL THE TIME. You don't bitch when it means a road in MY community gets paved (or do you?), and a few cents from you went into paving it. It's not like someone is going to come along and say, "So and so have 10 kids and it'll cost $40,000 to put them in daycare, fork it over!" We pay taxes for these things because that is the kind of society we live in. If you want a free-market free-for-all...go somewhere else, because you can't opt out of these taxes. I hate the GST (goods and services tax, 7% on top of everything you buy), but I have to pay it, and in the end, I have to hope that it's going into programs to keep my country strong...helping the PEOPLE that form this nation. I'm sorry you feel no desire to help your fellow man (loans? Again I ask you about corporate welfare...don't you think THEY should be paying back into the system???), but that isn't your choice when you live in a country with social programs. Thankfully.

Sinuhue..while I agree with you on principle regarding children as a blessing, we also do not tolerate those who could not provide for themselves...And only the strongest survived...our people once believed in these things, but over 2 centuries of exposure to Euro-emotions, and standards we have gotten away from who we are..I have no problem with as bottle suggested, a Loan...make it tantamount to a 5 yr plan...that will enable you to work, save, and pay back the loan...it should not be a handout, a gift or anything else. It'd be a temporary assistance loan that by paying back would give pride to the person taking out the loan...my family did stay on the reservation, til such time as our farm just couldn't produce financially..then my father like yours worked construction down in Knoxville working like many Native Americans on high-rise projects (what is it with us Natives and our ability to not have a fear of heights?)

And I agree..a child is an immense responsibility, and if one can not take into account the very real need for taking care of your own children (if no net existed would you still have children with no way to take care of them?..That's irresponsible in my book)..then they should refrain until such time as they can.

Bottle and Salishe,

First, you seem to be under the impression that all children in poverty were born that way. That seems an unlikely assertion given the economic downturn you have gone through over the past few years, not to mention details like divorce statistics. Should those families not be given a hand back to a more prosperous life?

And also, you seem to have an inconsistent viewpoint. You decry those who take assisstance, but fail to comprehend that if it winds up being financially detrimental to pay day care to go to work - people will simply stay on welfare.

The hope in providing such a service is that people will at best improve their job situation over time in order to lose their qualification for this subsidy in which case it served a good purpose, or to at least keep the parents in the job market rather than make them long-term welfare cases with no future at all.

This is a subsidy that often only kicks in for those same people who want to get off of other form of assistance to make ends meet, or to give the working poor a better chance at making it up the ladder.

By putting additional impediments in their way you are the ones helping to perpetuate the welfare needs more than those that want to incentivise them to do better.

-Z-

Sinuhue..while I agree with you on principle regarding children as a blessing, we also do not tolerate those who could not provide for themselves...And only the strongest survived...our people once believed in these things, but over 2 centuries of exposure to Euro-emotions, and standards we have gotten away from who we are..I have no problem with as bottle suggested, a Loan...make it tantamount to a 5 yr plan...that will enable you to work, save, and pay back the loan...it should not be a handout, a gift or anything else. It'd be a temporary assistance loan that by paying back would give pride to the person taking out the loan...my family did stay on the reservation, til such time as our farm just couldn't produce financially..then my father like yours worked construction down in Knoxville working like many Native Americans on high-rise projects (what is it with us Natives and our ability to not have a fear of heights?)

And I agree..a child is an immense responsibility, and if one can not take into account the very real need for taking care of your own children (if no net existed would you still have children with no way to take care of them?..That's irresponsible in my book)..then they should refrain until such time as they can.

I think you're confusing the issue again...I'll state it once more...we are talking about subsidized daycare...not supporting someone's children for the rest of their lives (DAYCARE, NOT FOSTER CARE). I don't think you should have to take out a loan for it for the same reason I don't think you should take a loan out to send them to elementary and secondary school, or take out a loan to see the doctor (which some people do in the U.S I think....), or that your town should take out a loan to pave the streets. If the citizen was meant to pay for everything on his/her own, we wouldn't have taxes. We would be making that nice number on top of our paycheque, instead of the crappy one on the bottom after all the deductions. Plenty of my money goes into programs I may never use, but I don't mind (well, ok, I mind, but here's one of those necessary evils from another thread:)). If we want that to be different, we need to get the gov't to give up all it's financial responsibilities, axe taxes and let the free market rule. No thanks. Someone posted that subsidized daycare has been in effect for a number of years in Quebéc, and I doubt that has meant a huge boom in people having babies, looking for a handout...because it isn't a handout...it's a helping hand. If we can afford to keep education public, we can do this.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with subsidizing daycare as it would enable the single mother to go out, get that job, in order to perhaps one day get off any kind of subsidized assistance...but that would butt up against people like you..not some rich cat...just average working folks who can afford it, it's just a little bit pricey...now me...I'm the same way..middle class, and I can see myself saying "Hey...I got kids..I work, how come I don't get a break?"...see..and anytime you get the government involved you're bound to have abuse or inefficiency in the system. Leave it up to the private sector to devise a system.
Daycare insurance?

I think you're confusing the issue again...I'll state it once more...we are talking about subsidized daycare...not supporting someone's children for the rest of their lives (DAYCARE, NOT FOSTER CARE). I don't think you should have to take out a loan for it for the same reason I don't think you should take a loan out to send them to elementary and secondary school, or take out a loan to see the doctor (which some people do in the U.S I think....), or that your town should take out a loan to pave the streets. If the citizen was meant to pay for everything on his/her own, we wouldn't have taxes. We would be making that nice number on top of our paycheque, instead of the crappy one on the bottom after all the deductions. Plenty of my money goes into programs I may never use, but I don't mind (well, ok, I mind, but here's one of those necessary evils from another thread:)). If we want that to be different, we need to get the gov't to give up all it's financial responsibilities, axe taxes and let the free market rule. No thanks. Someone posted that subsidized daycare has been in effect for a number of years in Quebéc, and I doubt that has meant a huge boom in people having babies, looking for a handout...because it isn't a handout...it's a helping hand. If we can afford to keep education public, we can do this.

Public education is one thing..roads are one thing..these are things for which we get something tangible back as a community...subsidized daycare does squat for the community and gives everything back to the individual who accepts it.

I wouldn't mind a "loan"...temporary assistance to help fund daycare, but you are paying it back..I'm not saying we shouldn't help a person, but you want no accountability for it..I want them to say..Thank you...and the first installment will be in the mail in two weeks.

i don't at all support using public funding for daycare. don't have babies if you can't support them on your own. if you do, that's your problem and you need to take responsibility rather than expecting others to support your mistake. the cry always goes up for single women whose husbands left them with babies, and i have zero sympathy: if you had kids without getting your own education and career first then that's your problem. it's stupid to put yourself in a position of being dependent on ANYBODY, no matter how much you love them and they love you.
So, the only people who should have kids are young urban professionals who can afford it? The same people who say things like "I'm focusing on my career for the moment"? The people who generally have money because they work and don't have families?

If this happens, having kids becomes disincentivised, and we'll be left with an aging population and a pension and social security nightmare.

Public education is one thing..roads are one thing..these are things for which we get something tangible back as a community...subsidized daycare does squat for the community and gives everything back to the individual who accepts it.

I wouldn't mind a "loan"...temporary assistance to help fund daycare, but you are paying it back..I'm not saying we shouldn't help a person, but you want no accountability for it..I want them to say..Thank you...and the first installment will be in the mail in two weeks.


Oh, you need a "thank you". Do you want them to beg too?

And what, pray tell, do you do to them if after three years the company they work for shuts down operations to move them to Bangalore, and the person winds up unable to repay the loan according to schedule for a bit until they secure a new job that pays enough?

Do you act like the IRS and repossess their home as punishment for trying their best to make a good life for their family?

Incidentally, given that current birth control techniques are not 100% effective, are people suggesting that it should be the government opinion that abortion is the prefered way of dealing with an unplanned pregancy for young couples just starting out on their careers? That the mandated choice is to either accept resulting poverty and forfeiting a career, or have an abortion or give up a child you are willing to love and raise for adoption?

The largest group of people living in poverty are children. One in five live in the most gutwrenching, horrific, terrifying levels of poverty, one in five, and they're children. If fidelity to freedom and democracy is at the core of our civic duty, then surely the core of our humanity must be to that unwritten comandment that our children shall recieve better than we ourselves recieve. In short, the reason for providing daycare is not that we think the government is better for children than parents are, or simply that we want to hand out money from the haves to the have-nots, its that we believe that always, always, always our children must be safe, must be secure, must be cared for not with the mere minimum of our abilities, but to the full and complete extent of our means.

Incidentally, given that current birth control techniques are not 100% effective, are people suggesting that it should be the government opinion that abortion is the prefered way of dealing with an unplanned pregancy for young couples just starting out on their careers? That the mandated choice is to either accept resulting poverty and forfeiting a career, or have an abortion or give up a child you are willing to love and raise for adoption?

Well..how bout a little bit of self-control there Zep...and while it's not 100% effective, Birth Control still gives something like what...99.5% affective last study I saw..an unplanned pregnacy is only done when you make conscious choices to engage in activity which could lead to pregnancy..ie..sexual intercourse....seems to me that the couple you'd refer to made choices like any other adult to engage in activity that even with birth control there is an element of risk.

Incidentally, given that current birth control techniques are not 100% effective, are people suggesting that it should be the government opinion that abortion is the prefered way of dealing with an unplanned pregancy for young couples just starting out on their careers? That the mandated choice is to either accept resulting poverty and forfeiting a career, or have an abortion or give up a child you are willing to love and raise for adoption?
Excellently put.

The largest group of people living in poverty are children. One in five live in the most gutwrenching, horrific, terrifying levels of poverty, one in five, and they're children. If fidelity to freedom and democracy is at the core of our civic duty, then surely the core of our humanity must be to that unwritten comandment that our children shall recieve better than we ourselves recieve. In short, the reason for providing daycare is not that we think the government is better for children than parents are, or simply that we want to hand out money from the haves to the have-nots, its that we believe that always, always, always our children must be safe, must be secure, must be cared for not with the mere minimum of our abilities, but to the full and complete extent of our means.

But at what point do you draw the line...since we can expect people to be irresponsible and either not take care of children or fail in that capacity there will always be children..so you'd continue to take from those who do work and who do take care of their children to give to people who couldn't do it in the first place?

Public education is one thing..roads are one thing..these are things for which we get something tangible back as a community...subsidized daycare does squat for the community and gives everything back to the individual who accepts it.

I wouldn't mind a "loan"...temporary assistance to help fund daycare, but you are paying it back..I'm not saying we shouldn't help a person, but you want no accountability for it..I want them to say..Thank you...and the first installment will be in the mail in two weeks.

I think we've proven that it would give a "tangible" return to the community...it will encourage people to work, rather than remain on welfare (not all of course, but those who can't afford daycare). Keeping that person productive rather than collecting social assistance (far more than would be given out in subsidies) is in EVERYONE's interests. While we're at it, let's make people take out loans for welfare...and when they can't pay, we'll just take everything they own...like their...um....they don't own anything of value...um....let's take THEIR OFFSPRING!!! MUAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHA!!! (just kidding).

Well..how bout a little bit of self-control there Zep...and while it's not 100% effective, Birth Control still gives something like what...99.5% affective last study I saw..an unplanned pregnacy is only done when you make conscious choices to engage in activity which could lead to pregnancy..ie..sexual intercourse....seems to me that the couple you'd refer to made choices like any other adult to engage in activity that even with birth control there is an element of risk.
So... you provide no options which are free of risk, and then you want to punish people if they take the chance and it goes wrong?

And people think that there are no compassionate conservatives

But at what point do you draw the line...since we can expect people to be irresponsible and either not take care of children or fail in that capacity there will always be children..so you'd continue to take from those who do work and who do take care of their children to give to people who couldn't do it in the first place?
I draw the line at the point where there is enough money to ensure that every child in the country is fed, clothed, sheltered and properly educated Salishe.

I draw the line at the point where there is enough money to ensure that every child in the country is fed, clothed, sheltered and properly educated Salishe.

Ok..so those who are working should continue to be soaked to pay for other people's families?...Not the American way I was taught.

So... you provide no options which are free of risk, and then you want to punish people if they take the chance and it goes wrong?

And people think that there are no compassionate conservatives

Hey...if you do the crime..do the time...or You made your bed, now lay in it..

We want mothers to find jobs and get off welfare but if they leave their kids at home alone they are jailed for neglect and if they pay for daycare they do not make enough money to live on.

Ok..so those who are working should continue to be soaked to pay for other people's families?...Not the American way I was taught.

Salishe!!! Come on!!! That's exactly how the system works!! More so in my country than yours....I'm not old, but my contribution to the Pension Plan is helping someone eat and pay their rent RIGHT NOW. I don't have kids in school yet, but I pay school taxes. I'm not on AISH (social assistance for those with mental illnesses, and diabilities), but part of my taxes pay for that too. Some of these programs I may need in the future, and some I may not. Your American way does the same thing to different degrees, and if you weren't taught that, shame on your teachers! Yes, we will continue to be "soaked" (don't you mean wrung out?), until you overthrow your government and install anarcho-capitalism.

(I know...for poor people with no collateral, they could offer to sell their organs to help secure those loans you talked about....they've been doing that in the Phillipines...seriously. Nuts 'eh?)

Ok..so those who are working should continue to be soaked to pay for other people's families?...Not the American way I was taught.
Quite frankly Salishe, you blow my mind. The American Way, harkening back to an earlier time, when men were men and women were for doing the cooking. The American Way, working your way up by your own hands, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, having slaves pick your cotton. The American Way, God-fearing, witch burning, Indian slaughtering-and-stealing-lands-from. Yeah, it's the last one, that's where I'm puzzled by you. Wasn't it the pioneers, the colonists from days of yore, who didn't so much work their way up as buy the land for beads and kill your ancestors? It blows my mind that you call for a return to the old values. That's all.

Well..how bout a little bit of self-control there Zep...and while it's not 100% effective, Birth Control still gives something like what...99.5% affective last study I saw..an unplanned pregnacy is only done when you make conscious choices to engage in activity which could lead to pregnancy..ie..sexual intercourse....seems to me that the couple you'd refer to made choices like any other adult to engage in activity that even with birth control there is an element of risk.

So - young married people should refrain from intercourse too now until they are financially able to have a child?

Gee. Can they hold hands at least?

Ok..so those who are working should continue to be soaked to pay for other people's families?...Not the American way I was taught.
Also, you know what else? The American way was about pulling together. Families worked together, you helped harvest your neighbour's wheat and he helped thresh your rye. The good side of the American way was people who looked out for each other, George and Lennie style, who offered a helping hand when a neighbour was in need, who rejoiced together as a community in times of triumph and who mourned together in times of tragedy.

FDR said, "when your neighbours house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of your garden hose". One in five kids... they're on fire. Why help them? Because we can.

Quite frankly Salishe, you blow my mind. The American Way, harkening back to an earlier time, when men were men and women were for doing the cooking. The American Way, working your way up by your own hands, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, having slaves pick your cotton. The American Way, God-fearing, witch burning, Indian slaughtering-and-stealing-lands-from. Yeah, it's the last one, that's where I'm puzzled by you. Wasn't it the pioneers, the colonists from days of yore, who didn't so much work their way up as buy the land for beads and kill your ancestors? It blows my mind that you call for a return to the old values. That's all.

One doesn't have to go back that far...up until Franklin Roosevelt started to chip away at the means by which people sank or swim on their own, with his New Deal, all of which was later condemned as UnConstitutional, and followed up by Johnson's disastrous Welfare plans...

Yes..I am for pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps..I see nothing wrong with that...and sinuhue...there is a difference between giving a leg up and giving a handout...you want daycare...fine...we'll give you a line of credit you can use but you will pay it back as your economic situation improves.

we'll give you a line of credit you can use but you will pay it back as your economic situation improves.
Can we have this line as "if your economic situation improves"?

This discussion has been great...and thanks to everyone for not getting pissed at eachother...I hope to come back and read TONNES MORE POSTS....until then, I'm off with my kids to go soak up some publicly funded fun at the park:).

Tahns'i

only people who can afford to support children should have them. you don't have to be rich to be able to support your kid, but if you can't support it then you are a cruel and selfish person for choosing to have that child in the first place. if you think children are such a blessing then ACT LIKE IT: show some responsibility, and only have these blessings when you can be fully worthy of them. make sure you can provide necessary child care yourself, or that you can afford to pay for it if you need somebody else to participate in care. make sure you can support your family on the income you have, and that you have enough wiggle room to get by if something goes wrong.

if you don't care enough about your kids to make sure you can support them, then you obviously aren't worthy of having those kids in the first place. making babies just because YOU want them is horrible, and expecting other people to support your family is disgusting.
Beeing unable to support your children and beeing able to pay for private daycare aren't the same thing.

you said that i thought people who make a mistake "should burn." i don't think that at all, unless their mistake is to jump into a fire. in that case, i don't know what else they expected to happen, and i wouldn't think the laws of thermodynamics should be suspended just for them.

I was referring to the "i don't especially WANT bad things to happen to people", and pointed out that I never claimed otherwise.

You say that you don't want people to burn for their mistakes, not unless they jump into a fire, and in the next breath you go:

people who make a mistake should take care of it themselves. if that means "burning" then fine.

Correct me but isn't that a contradiction? I mean, if you were serious about not wanting people to burn for their mistakes than you can't at the same time say "fine" when they do end up burning for their mistakes, right?

i only have a problem with people expecting others to clean up their mistakes.

I doubt anyone is expecting this, and I don't see how this justifies your extremist stance on subsidized daycare. Not unless you can prove that those lobbying for / in need of subsidized day-care are expecting others to clean up their mistakes.

bump