"Affordable Childcare"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 17:41, don't forget opposing raising the minimum wage, maternal/paternal leave policies, and paid sick leave.

Without those, plus all the other things 17:41 mentioned, the republicans are just supporting pro-life policies because they make the wealthy wealthier, and make everyone else poorer.

When does the bucket get empty? Are ALL of those necessary? This started with affordable daycare (which wad discussed and promoted at the Repiblican conventions) and has expanded into the Democrat wish list. Yes, Republicans and democrats have different ideas of how to support families and generate wealth. Different doesn't mean against. You've had eight years of a Democratic president, many Democratic mayors - how are all the families receiving democratic beneficence doing? Are you sure those communities would be worse off with different leadership? Both parties agree on the need for daycare reform to support working families. Where's O been on this?

Where in the republican platform does it provide for affordable childcare? What's the plan? The details, not the wish list.

I've started thinking that republican voters have one wish list, and the republican elites have another.

I didn't say that ALL were necessary, I meant that in conjunction with things mentioned by 17:41 and those (to include the PRO-LIFE agenda of forcing people to have more children than they can afford by taking away access to healthcare (to include affordable birth control which is tons cheaper Han childcare/snap/TANF/education/etc) and abortion the party elites are accomplishing their goals - make the wealthy wealthier and everyone else poorer.

[Anonymous]

Right, you can't really just talk about childcare without discussing other policies surrounding supporting working families. They are all linked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Affordable" is a code word for cheap, isn't it?

Me again. Can we please define "affordable" with actual numbers? Or how do you know what anyone is talking about? Or are numbers irrelevant, as long as you're getting government subsidies?

no, because costs are relative to COL. But I definitely think percentage of income is a good way to gauge affordability on a case by case basis-maybe a sliding income scale, like FCPS does with SACC.

Who would the difference be paid by? Not a great example but If your day care costs $100 a week but your percentage says you pay $60, who pays the $40?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Affordable" is a code word for cheap, isn't it?

Me again. Can we please define "affordable" with actual numbers? Or how do you know what anyone is talking about? Or are numbers irrelevant, as long as you're getting government subsidies?

no, because costs are relative to COL. But I definitely think percentage of income is a good way to gauge affordability on a case by case basis-maybe a sliding income scale, like FCPS does with SACC.

Who would the difference be paid by? Not a great example but If your day care costs $100 a week but your percentage says you pay $60, who pays the $40?

+1

The government. And before anyone protests, I'll point out that we have a consumer economy, and increasing the spending money of working people is maybe the number one way to stimulate our economy. Subsidizing childcare would enable more people to work, thereby improving productivity, and also mean people who are already working will be able to buy more goods.

It's not only a compassionate way to treat families, it also benefits the economic state of the nation as a whole. It's a great investment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what politicians (both D & R) mean when they say talk about affordable childcare? Are they talking about subsidizing, or regulating prices? I feel like it's a bait issue that is tossed around but with no real way to accomplish or solve. Please be nice- it's an honest question.

It means that those of us who didn't have children until we could afford them will end up paying for irresponsible people having unprotected sex. If you cannot afford child care, you cannot afford to have a child.

You're cute.

I support many unwanted children through my federal state and local taxes. Then I am asked to make charitable contributions to buy them school supplies, weekend food backpacks, Christmas present and summer camp. I will get nothing from it. Sucks, but that's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 17:41, don't forget opposing raising the minimum wage, maternal/paternal leave policies, and paid sick leave.

Without those, plus all the other things 17:41 mentioned, the republicans are just supporting pro-life policies because they make the wealthy wealthier, and make everyone else poorer.

When does the bucket get empty? Are ALL of those necessary? This started with affordable daycare (which wad discussed and promoted at the Repiblican conventions) and has expanded into the Democrat wish list. Yes, Republicans and democrats have different ideas of how to support families and generate wealth. Different doesn't mean against. You've had eight years of a Democratic president, many Democratic mayors - how are all the families receiving democratic beneficence doing? Are you sure those communities would be worse off with different leadership? Both parties agree on the need for daycare reform to support working families. Where's O been on this?

All of those things are necessary, but the point is that the conservative positions on them are inherently contradictory.

If you taught people about sex and how to have it safely and made birth control easily accessible, then far fewer people would get pregnant unintentionally. If we took those prophylactic measures, then many of the other things, while still necessary, would cost a lot less. (And, with fewer unplanned pregnancies there would be less demand for abortions! Gee, wouldn't that be a good thing?) And, as an added bonus, if you get people using condoms you reduce the incidence of STDs, lowering medical costs to society.

So, if you have fewer unplanned pregnancies, you can actually focus resources on prenatal education and care, making it more likely that the babies are born healthier - lowering the cost of post-partum medical care. Yay!

And, if you support SNAP and Head Start (and don't buy into the debunked but never released myth of the welfare queen), and then support the continued education of young mothers and integration into the work force, then you have healthier children who are more likely to grow up and NOT go to jail and children and mothers who are actually more likely to be productive, tax paying members of society.

If the children and mothers require less medical care and fewer interventions, that lowers the cost to society as a whole.

If fewer people go to jail, that lowers the cost to society as a whole.

So, if conservatives could just unclench themselves from the idea that they can prevent sex from happening and that any sex out of wedlock is shameful, then we could actually get around to making sex safer, making pregnancy safer and healthier, and then supporting women who get pregnant because we actually DO care about both their lives and the lives of their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what politicians (both D & R) mean when they say talk about affordable childcare? Are they talking about subsidizing, or regulating prices? I feel like it's a bait issue that is tossed around but with no real way to accomplish or solve. Please be nice- it's an honest question.

It means that those of us who didn't have children until we could afford them will end up paying for irresponsible people having unprotected sex. If you cannot afford child care, you cannot afford to have a child.

So I should have had an abortion when my 2 forms of birth control failed? (Condom + pill)

Yes. The purpose of abortion is to take care of the results of failed birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Affordable" is a code word for cheap, isn't it?

Me again. Can we please define "affordable" with actual numbers? Or how do you know what anyone is talking about? Or are numbers irrelevant, as long as you're getting government subsidies?

no, because costs are relative to COL. But I definitely think percentage of income is a good way to gauge affordability on a case by case basis-maybe a sliding income scale, like FCPS does with SACC.

Who would the difference be paid by? Not a great example but If your day care costs $100 a week but your percentage says you pay $60, who pays the $40?

+1

The government. And before anyone protests, I'll point out that we have a consumer economy, and increasing the spending money of working people is maybe the number one way to stimulate our economy. Subsidizing childcare would enable more people to work, thereby improving productivity, and also mean people who are already working will be able to buy more goods.

It's not only a compassionate way to treat families, it also benefits the economic state of the nation as a whole. It's a great investment.

I don't disagree with you on this point. Raising the minimum wage would result in the same thing, too. But where does the money come from for the government to pay for the subsidies? We are already drowning in debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what politicians (both D & R) mean when they say talk about affordable childcare? Are they talking about subsidizing, or regulating prices? I feel like it's a bait issue that is tossed around but with no real way to accomplish or solve. Please be nice- it's an honest question.

It means that those of us who didn't have children until we could afford them will end up paying for irresponsible people having unprotected sex. If you cannot afford child care, you cannot afford to have a child.

You're cute.

I support many unwanted children through my federal state and local taxes. Then I am asked to make charitable contributions to buy them school supplies, weekend food backpacks, Christmas present and summer camp. I will get nothing from it. Sucks, but that's life.

Sure you do. You get the satisfaction of knowing that you are a decent person. That you have made a difference for the better in someone's life. And you know that poor children who are supported, fed well, given opportunities, are more likely to be able to rise out of poverty. Society wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what politicians (both D & R) mean when they say talk about affordable childcare? Are they talking about subsidizing, or regulating prices? I feel like it's a bait issue that is tossed around but with no real way to accomplish or solve. Please be nice- it's an honest question.

It means that those of us who didn't have children until we could afford them will end up paying for irresponsible people having unprotected sex. If you cannot afford child care, you cannot afford to have a child.

You're cute.

I support many unwanted children through my federal state and local taxes. Then I am asked to make charitable contributions to buy them school supplies, weekend food backpacks, Christmas present and summer camp. I will get nothing from it. Sucks, but that's life.

Sure you do. You get the satisfaction of knowing that you are a decent person. That you have made a difference for the better in someone's life. And you know that poor children who are supported, fed well, given opportunities, are more likely to be able to rise out of poverty. Society wins.

Also, those kids are the ones who will be paying into social security when you are old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Affordable" is a code word for cheap, isn't it?

Me again. Can we please define "affordable" with actual numbers? Or how do you know what anyone is talking about? Or are numbers irrelevant, as long as you're getting government subsidies?

no, because costs are relative to COL. But I definitely think percentage of income is a good way to gauge affordability on a case by case basis-maybe a sliding income scale, like FCPS does with SACC.

Who would the difference be paid by? Not a great example but If your day care costs $100 a week but your percentage says you pay $60, who pays the $40?

+1

The government. And before anyone protests, I'll point out that we have a consumer economy, and increasing the spending money of working people is maybe the number one way to stimulate our economy. Subsidizing childcare would enable more people to work, thereby improving productivity, and also mean people who are already working will be able to buy more goods.

It's not only a compassionate way to treat families, it also benefits the economic state of the nation as a whole. It's a great investment.

How is the separation of infants from their parents compassionate?

Have you lost your marbles?

[Anonymous]

Since none of the policies would benefit our middle class family in a HCOL area, I oppose them. They are intended for middle income families in normal cost of living areas so what will happen is anyone making over $75K will never benefit from something like this.

I really believe that at this point the only affordable way to get really decent child care for the masses is for parental leave policies to be extended and for the government to provide child care subsidies to the states and private providers to reduce costs for everyone across the board and increase the number of educated and experienced care providers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since none of the policies would benefit our middle class family in a HCOL area, I oppose them. They are intended for middle income families in normal cost of living areas so what will happen is anyone making over $75K will never benefit from something like this.

I really believe that at this point the only affordable way to get really decent child care for the masses is for parental leave policies to be extended and for the government to provide child care subsidies to the states and private providers to reduce costs for everyone across the board and increase the number of educated and experienced care providers.

What about the fact that the majority of your child care workers live in poverty?

No one here seems to care about that.

[Anonymous]

I had a student with a sick baby. She applied for a childcare subsidy in January. It took until mid-June before she had any success. The father worked. So he was no slacker, and her parents took time off work to help watch the baby so that she could continue with school.

Here's a kid who made a mistake (a big one, I'll add) but who still moved forward despite the obstacles she and her baby faced. And yes, she's "legal," folks.

I don't believe for one minute that either candidate will truly level the playing field in this area. There's too much red tape involved and too many people who need assistance.

In the meantime, here's a reminder about how Trump really feels - http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/27/donald_trump_called_pregnancy_an_inconvenience_for_business_owners.html
Donald Trump Called Pregnancy an “Inconvenience” for Business Owners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 17:41, don't forget opposing raising the minimum wage, maternal/paternal leave policies, and paid sick leave.

Without those, plus all the other things 17:41 mentioned, the republicans are just supporting pro-life policies because they make the wealthy wealthier, and make everyone else poorer.

When does the bucket get empty? Are ALL of those necessary? This started with affordable daycare (which wad discussed and promoted at the Repiblican conventions) and has expanded into the Democrat wish list. Yes, Republicans and democrats have different ideas of how to support families and generate wealth. Different doesn't mean against. You've had eight years of a Democratic president, many Democratic mayors - how are all the families receiving democratic beneficence doing? Are you sure those communities would be worse off with different leadership? Both parties agree on the need for daycare reform to support working families. Where's O been on this?

All of those things are necessary, but the point is that the conservative positions on them are inherently contradictory.

If you taught people about sex and how to have it safely and made birth control easily accessible, then far fewer people would get pregnant unintentionally. If we took those prophylactic measures, then many of the other things, while still necessary, would cost a lot less. (And, with fewer unplanned pregnancies there would be less demand for abortions! Gee, wouldn't that be a good thing?) And, as an added bonus, if you get people using condoms you reduce the incidence of STDs, lowering medical costs to society.

So, if you have fewer unplanned pregnancies, you can actually focus resources on prenatal education and care, making it more likely that the babies are born healthier - lowering the cost of post-partum medical care. Yay!

And, if you support SNAP and Head Start (and don't buy into the debunked but never released myth of the welfare queen), and then support the continued education of young mothers and integration into the work force, then you have healthier children who are more likely to grow up and NOT go to jail and children and mothers who are actually more likely to be productive, tax paying members of society.

If the children and mothers require less medical care and fewer interventions, that lowers the cost to society as a whole.

If fewer people go to jail, that lowers the cost to society as a whole.

So, if conservatives could just unclench themselves from the idea that they can prevent sex from happening and that any sex out of wedlock is shameful, then we could actually get around to making sex safer, making pregnancy safer and healthier, and then supporting women who get pregnant because we actually DO care about both their lives and the lives of their children.

I've been on government aid. I've also met people who fit the definition of welfare queen. They are not living high on the hog, just scrabbling out miserable work free existences - and teaching their kids no different because they know no better.its pretty appalling. Programs like welfare to work (which also included education or training provisions) were meant to break people out of systemic poverty.