"Affordable Childcare"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

It's not a nice or acceptable thing to say, but it is a true statement. If your nanny told you that she was pregnant and taking 6 weeks off in 20 weeks (let's say she waits to announce), you would have to find a replacement to fill her position. You would need to retrain someone on your childs likes/dislikes, schedule, family routine, etc. It's okay, but it's an inconvenience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

It's not a nice or acceptable thing to say, but it is a true statement. If your nanny told you that she was pregnant and taking 6 weeks off in 20 weeks (let's say she waits to announce), you would have to find a replacement to fill her position. You would need to retrain someone on your childs likes/dislikes, schedule, family routine, etc. It's okay, but it's an inconvenience.

Look - I don't disagree with that. It's truthful. However, shouldn't a thriving business have a back up plan? If a principal of a school is out on maternity leave, they will put in a retired interim principal. I'm sure there are plenty of retirees who could return on a consultant basis to fill in the gap. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a solution. Budget well, I say.

And I do have a nanny. lol! When she's sick, we have a back up plan that can extend long-term. If she never returns, then we're back to square 1. But ALL companies lose people and have to hire and train newbies. That's just life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well, ideally we'd also have up to a year of paid family leave, so we wouldn't be separating infants from their families. But as it stands now, there are a lot of families in which both parents have to work to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, and the only child care they can afford is substandard.

Don't use expensive child care as a stick to force women to stay home; offer family leave as a carrot to entice parents to stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well, ideally we'd also have up to a year of paid family leave, so we wouldn't be separating infants from their families. But as it stands now, there are a lot of families in which both parents have to work to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, and the only child care they can afford is substandard.

Don't use expensive child care as a stick to force women to stay home; offer family leave as a carrot to entice parents to stay home.

Thanks, Einstein, but I said nothing about women. What are you freggin' talking about?? You have no clue.

[Anonymous]

Well, since many r's want to punish people for being tramps who are pregnant against their wishes, it isn't too far fetched to think that they also think that all woman should be home with their children. I mean, really, what else are we allowed to take from your "tearing infants from their parents" statement?

[Anonymous]

^^^ not sure why, but allowed was an autocorrect of supposed. So, what are we supposed to take from your statement.

[Anonymous]

We're supposed to take that women should stay home and men should work.

Let's be clear that NO ONE ever questioned men being away from their children so they could work. And still don't FYI. It's only women who are told they are bad parents for not staying home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, since many r's want to punish people for being tramps who are pregnant against their wishes, it isn't too far fetched to think that they also think that all woman should be home with their children. I mean, really, what else are we allowed to take from your "tearing infants from their parents" statement?

"Tearing infants"??? Next time, please quote me truthfully. Looks like you have a guilt complex, lady. You can get help for that if you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:well, many european countries have actual affordable childcare. they also have reasonable maternity leave policies.

Maternity leave could go a long way to help make those first years of parenthood more affordable.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, since many r's want to punish people for being tramps who are pregnant against their wishes, it isn't too far fetched to think that they also think that all woman should be home with their children. I mean, really, what else are we allowed to take from your "tearing infants from their parents" statement?

"Tearing infants"??? Next time, please quote me truthfully. Looks like you have a guilt complex, lady. You can get help for that if you want.

What a non-answer. Please explain your point, despite me getting one word wrong from your post from a while back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To the poster asking about my point, this is where I came in... asking two questions. But alas, still no answer.

[Anonymous]

So, you're anti-child care. Just say it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To the poster asking about my point, this is where I came in... asking two questions. But alas, still no answer.

Parents who do not want to separate from their infants are welcome to stay at home.

Parents who have to work and their children will benefit from affordable, high-quality childcare for their babies. So yes, it's a compassionate thing to do for a mother who has to work, and can be sure that her baby is taken care of well by a professional, high-quality provider. If you think that all mothers ought to stay home with their infants, advocate for paid parental leave so that families aren't bankrupted by forced unemployment.

[Anonymous]

from affordable, high-quality childcare [b]for their babies

????could someone describe this? Is this government run? Home care? What is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To the poster asking about my point, this is where I came in... asking two questions. But alas, still no answer.

Parents who do not want to separate from their infants are welcome to stay at home.

Parents who have to work and their children will benefit from affordable, high-quality childcare for their babies. So yes, it's a compassionate thing to do for a mother who has to work, and can be sure that her baby is taken care of well by a professional, high-quality provider. If you think that all mothers ought to stay home with their infants, advocate for paid parental leave so that families aren't bankrupted by forced unemployment.

You're rambling.