Anonymous wrote:10:15 More afterschool programs would open like they already are. The private market takes care of needs that people want to pay. You can't have a system where more people are taking out instead of putting in. Parents with one working spouse already can take a tax deduction for their other spouse during their working years. If they want more funds in retirement, they should pay more into SS.

FCPS ranks first in the nation for high school graduation rates in large school systems. Even with children coming into high school without knowing English and a schooling background only to a 3rd grade level. That's astounding. And yet, we can't pay our teachers reasonable amounts and have classes over 30 students. There has to be some balance and more vocational opportunities as well. It's simply too much for a teacher to be responsible for teaching a child 9 years of education over 4 years plus teach them English.

As a high school ESOL teacher, I thank you for this. I agree that we have a great deal of success, even with all these challenging kids. However, we also have a lot of kids who just end up dropping out of school and I am not sure that gets figured into graduation rates since an ESOL student never gets to 12th grade (they repeat 11th grade until they get out of ESOL). There need to be more options for these kids.

Anonymous wrote:
People who stay at home take care of all that it takes to run a household without pay. Besides childcare, which is the most important work they do, many do all the housecleaning, cooking, shopping, and lawn care. Some are taking care of disabled children or elderly parents. In addition, many use that 6-8 hours (which gets shortened when there are multiple kids on different school schedules or the parent provides transportation to and from school) to provide community service, volunteering time as helpers in schools, as Scout leaders, religious education instructors, club organizers. They do fundraising for schools and community groups.

Families that choose for one parent to stay at home make a lot of sacrifices. Yes, it is a choice a family makes, but it is a choice that has benefits for society at large.

(Just think, if all those stay at home parents suddenly needed after school care, what would happen to that already long waitlist for SACC? )

BTW, I work full-time and I am a room parent in my kid's class and do pro bono in the legal community. I get so sick and tired of that trite argument that the world is going to collapse without the SAHPs.

Anonymous wrote:
People who stay at home take care of all that it takes to run a household without pay. Besides childcare, which is the most important work they do, many do all the housecleaning, cooking, shopping, and lawn care. Some are taking care of disabled children or elderly parents. In addition, many use that 6-8 hours (which gets shortened when there are multiple kids on different school schedules or the parent provides transportation to and from school) to provide community service, volunteering time as helpers in schools, as Scout leaders, religious education instructors, club organizers. They do fundraising for schools and community groups.

Families that choose for one parent to stay at home make a lot of sacrifices. Yes, it is a choice a family makes, but it is a choice that has benefits for society at large.

(Just think, if all those stay at home parents suddenly needed after school care, what would happen to that already long waitlist for SACC? )

That still does not give them a reason to receive SS benefits. They did not put in the requisite quarters and should not collect. People want to know why the program is broken, well this is one of the reasons.

You know what's funny about it? I better many of these recipients who never put a dam in the system are some of the biggest protesters screaming the government is too damn big and The government gives too many welfare benefits such as Obama phones, ACA, and food stamps.

10:15 More afterschool programs would open like they already are. The private market takes care of needs that people want to pay. You can't have a system where more people are taking out instead of putting in. Parents with one working spouse already can take a tax deduction for their other spouse during their working years. If they want more funds in retirement, they should pay more into SS.

FCPS ranks first in the nation for high school graduation rates in large school systems. Even with children coming into high school without knowing English and a schooling background only to a 3rd grade level. That's astounding. And yet, we can't pay our teachers reasonable amounts and have classes over 30 students. There has to be some balance and more vocational opportunities as well. It's simply too much for a teacher to be responsible for teaching a child 9 years of education over 4 years plus teach them English.

Do all the people who support funds to immigrants know that these children are being counted as 2 children verses one in the current FCPS system plus getting ESOL benefits as well?

People who stay at home take care of all that it takes to run a household without pay. Besides childcare, which is the most important work they do, many do all the housecleaning, cooking, shopping, and lawn care. Some are taking care of disabled children or elderly parents. In addition, many use that 6-8 hours (which gets shortened when there are multiple kids on different school schedules or the parent provides transportation to and from school) to provide community service, volunteering time as helpers in schools, as Scout leaders, religious education instructors, club organizers. They do fundraising for schools and community groups.

Families that choose for one parent to stay at home make a lot of sacrifices. Yes, it is a choice a family makes, but it is a choice that has benefits for society at large.

(Just think, if all those stay at home parents suddenly needed after school care, what would happen to that already long waitlist for SACC? )

Anonymous wrote:Once you are out of the workforce for 7+ years, it's very very difficult to get back in. The market/system is not very flexible unless you are in a field like teaching or nursing. What we really need is a year of maternity/paternity leave and better access to nursery schools. If that was the case, it would be a lot easier for qualified women to get back into the workforce and contribute to the Soc. Sec. pool.

Excuses. It is a conscious decision, right or wrong, that many women choose. Heck, a lot of women on DCUM brag about the ability to stay out out of the workforce, and others lament the fact that they cannot. Why in the world should those who get up every morning and go to work, and then go home and parent their children have to pay SS benefits for those that choose not to contribute. Oh, and there are nursery schools abound.

Once you are out of the workforce for 7+ years, it's very very difficult to get back in. The market/system is not very flexible unless you are in a field like teaching or nursing. What we really need is a year of maternity/paternity leave and better access to nursery schools. If that was the case, it would be a lot easier for qualified women to get back into the workforce and contribute to the Soc. Sec. pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16:54 There are many people who provide worth to society, however it makes sense that a program would run out of money when a women working outside of the house paying into the program all those years gets the same amount back as a woman staying at home not paying into the program. You're supposed to get back what you put in, but these women or men who stay at home do not put any money into the program, therefore they shouldn't get anything back unless they are poor and can't take care of themselves. We know people who've retired with millions of dollars getting two social security checks back 20 years plus even though only one worked. This is just one of the problems with the program.

I'm not sure that is true. I look at social SECURITY as a means of ensuring that we don't have people living on the street in their old age and if you've worked a long time, then you get something more than people who haven't worked (contributed a long time). Means testing Soc. Sec. makes the most sense. As for the spousal benefit -- it is a recognition by the government that a non-working spouse is part of a household economic TEAM and she (since it is usually the wife) shouldn't be penalized for the TEAM's decision to have one person focus on outside work and one person focus on the household/children work. It is a recognition (back in the day) that society benefits from kids who have a parent at home.

So you would means test people who work and put money in the system, and give freely to those who stay home and don't work. Why should people continue to sacrifice and squirrel way money in 401ks and IRAs if they can get the same amount in SS? For many people SS complements what they have tried to save in the retirement accounts, but if you reduce ones SS by their retirement accounts, why's the incentive. I certainly would just take that extra money and take that vacation I crave, after all if I have it at retirement, I won't get my SS and that I am mandatorily required to participate in.

In addition, I call BS on women who choose to SAH and not work for 20-25 years. Kids are out of the house for 6-8 hours around the age of five. Around the age of 12, the kids are out of the house far more hours, so if these women or men choose to not work for their own reasons, more power to them, but why the heck are they entitled to basically a pension that they did not contribute.

Yes, SS needs fixing, and this would be a greet place to begin.

Anonymous wrote:

There's a spousal claim which currently gives spouses who never paid into the system half the salary their working spouse gets even when their spouse is still alive as if that makes any sense.

Right, because people who spent their prime working years taking care of children surely haven't provided anything worthwhile to society!

But they did not pay into the system. Don't try to compare a watermelon to a grape seed. I can understand receiving your deceased spouse's retirement, but for a non-paying spouse to receive benefits on top of what the living spouse who did not pay into the system, makes little sense.

Anonymous wrote:16:54 There are many people who provide worth to society, however it makes sense that a program would run out of money when a women working outside of the house paying into the program all those years gets the same amount back as a woman staying at home not paying into the program. You're supposed to get back what you put in, but these women or men who stay at home do not put any money into the program, therefore they shouldn't get anything back unless they are poor and can't take care of themselves. We know people who've retired with millions of dollars getting two social security checks back 20 years plus even though only one worked. This is just one of the problems with the program.

I'm not sure that is true. I look at social SECURITY as a means of ensuring that we don't have people living on the street in their old age and if you've worked a long time, then you get something more than people who haven't worked (contributed a long time). Means testing Soc. Sec. makes the most sense. As for the spousal benefit -- it is a recognition by the government that a non-working spouse is part of a household economic TEAM and she (since it is usually the wife) shouldn't be penalized for the TEAM's decision to have one person focus on outside work and one person focus on the household/children work. It is a recognition (back in the day) that society benefits from kids who have a parent at home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:who said there was a baby boom? The fertility rate continues to decline, and nearly all increases are from immigration. There are exceptions to this rule, but on average, the people having multiple children are immigrants, mostly because many of them are strict catholics.

Or Muslims, here legitimately (because you can't exactly walk across the ocean from the Middle East). The Muslim families in the schools around us have about an average 5 kids EACH.

The Muslim families in my DC's schools tend to be 2-4, with most having 2. The ones in my DC's schools with larger families tend to be LDS and Catholic.

Great post 8:14! I'm so glad to see posts like yours countering the other posters.

Anonymous wrote:who said there was a baby boom? The fertility rate continues to decline, and nearly all increases are from immigration. There are exceptions to this rule, but on average, the people having multiple children are immigrants, mostly because many of them are strict catholics.

Or Muslims, here legitimately (because you can't exactly walk across the ocean from the Middle East). The Muslim families in the schools around us have about an average 5 kids EACH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how all the fear-mongering and bigotry against immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants, compares to that leveled against my Irish-Catholic ancestors in the 1840s? Plus ce change, plus ce la meme chose, n'est ce pas?

Laws then and now please?

Major laws

1790 - Naturalization Act of 1790 placed no restrictions on immigration, but limited citizenship to white persons only.
1875 - Page Act limits immigration of "undesirables,' largely aimed at Asian indentured laborers, Asian women and people who would be considered convicts in their own country.
1882 - Chinese Exclusion Act banned immigration from China.
1917 - Immigration Act of 1917 further restricts immigration from Asia
1924 - Introduces nationality quotas in response to increased immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. Needed to keep out the PolacksDagos and Chinks. Oh, and let's not forget the Jews.


But beyond the laws, is the sentiment of so-called "nativist" sentiment. More than 5 million Irish immigrants came to America between 1820 and 1920. In the early 19th century, their presence stoked "nativist" passions among Protestant "native" Americans who feared that their large numbers, poverty and religion threatened to undermine America's economic, political and social order. Most Irish immigrants fleeing the An Gorta Mor in Ireland were unskilled peasants. They sought out work as laborers and were viewed as a threat by "native" workingmen. They crowded together in rooming houses and tenements in slums that bred disease. They drank... a lot, and many of them were not native English speakers. Native Protestants feared their religion - Roman Catholicism - fearing that the Irish were loyal to a foreign potentate who was against the American ideas of democracy and self government. Political cartoons of the era depict Catholic bishops as crocodiles and the Irish with simian features. In response to Protestant mobs threatening Catholic Churches in New York, Archbishop John Hughes surrounded his cathedral with armed Irish men. The Know Nothing Movement of the 1850s coalesced largely around anti-immigrant and anti-Irish sentiment. Abraham Lincoln criticized them thus: "We practically read it [the Declaration of Independence] to mean all men are created equal except Negroes. When the Know Nothings get control, we shall read it to mean that all men are created equal except for Negroes, foreigners and Catholics. When it comes to this, I shall prefer to move to some country that makes no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

I see the same anti-immigrant sentiment today, with the Tea Party being an heir to the "nativist" bigotry of the Know Nothings.

NINA