Ok, how about you show me republicans ideas for actually providing affordable childcare first. Nice to pay lip service through the candidate's pampered princess daughter, but it isn't an actual platform.

Meanwhile, republican congresses and statehouses have actively taken away supports for working families.

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?

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 the working class doesn't get to have kids, then? That's real classist of you.

No, they don't get to have sex. Birth control does have a failure rate, which means that if you have sex you're being irresponsible.

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 the working class doesn't get to have kids, then? That's real classist of you.

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.

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

no sex for you, tramp

You must have messed up because there is no way that both the pull and a condom wouId fail unless you or your DH put a hole in the condom and substituted a placebo for the BC pill!

"The pull" method? Lol!

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.

Yep. You're right. I left those and probably a host of others out.

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.

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

no sex for you, tramp

You must have messed up because there is no way that both the pull and a condom wouId fail unless you or your DH put a hole in the condom and substituted a placebo for the BC pill!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:Well what they're saying and what they are actually able to accomplish are not necessarily true.

HRC. for example, has I believed proposed a plan that would limit the amount of money a family has to pay for childcare to 10% of the family's income or something like that. It is to get around the fact that, for example, in the DC area the average price for infant care (in a daycare, not some luxe nanny) is $24,000 a year. This could essentially bankrupt a single mom making a respectable 50k salary. They are proposing solutions to fix this problem.

I think a good solution could be having the tax credit for child care be a sliding amount depending on the location's average childcare prices.

IE, in DC its 24k, in Maine it is 10k so DC residents could get more of the money put towards childcare tax exempt.

CAN they do any of this? Doubtful.

Why not? It seems very reasonable to me. A tax credit in proportion to local cost of daycare is simple and makes so much sense. What are the arguments or cons here I am very curious.
Subsidizing daycares in general is beset with problems (regulations, beaurocracy etc) and also will not result in fees coming down - that is just a joke. Vouchers for low-income families is also a beaurocratic nightmare and keeps people on welfare - it's not creating "affordable childcare." Hillary's plan might be on the right track.

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.

wait, what was that part about not supporting abortion or comprehensive sex ed?

Yeah, get the hell out of here with your nonsense

Yeah, see, that's the problem.

Republicans oppose anything but abstinence only sex Ed in schools (which has repeatedly been shown not to work) and access to birth control. They defund Planned Parethood, and oppose abortion.

Then, once the children they've left ignorant and unsupported have sex and the girls get pregnant, they blame them, shame them and make it virtually impossible for them to get an abortion (because they value life).

At the same time they oppose funding prenatal care and nutrition programs for the pregnant girls, increasing the likelihood that the "lives" they supposedly will be low birthweight, have special needs, etc. (because, after all, why should the "responsible" people have to pay for those sluts who can't keep their legs together), and then they vote to cut things like Head Start, SNAP and other programs on the grounds that "welfare queens" are just churning out babies at society's expense.

They vote to cut education and job training programs that would help the young mothers advance themselves and break the cycle of poverty, and then blame the mothers and the kids who repeat the cycle and subsidize the prison industrial complex.

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.

Except having a child today is unaffordable for many single parents and many two parent working families. I have nothing against 50 year olds having designer babies, but 24 year olds who are responsible and hardworking should be able to as well, without paying their entire income to quality childcare. There are parallels here to rising college tuition.
--a Republican for whom the best part of the convention was Ivanka Trump speaking to this
--a Republican who scrabbled for childcare when I was 24; looking out for the next gen. Yes, Republicans have hearts

and then people bitch at those who wait until they are late 30s/early 40s and need ART

We can't have it both ways, society.