Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it amusing the director of Poverty Research believes 'the government' (read yours and my wallet) should once again become involved, in the form of instituting a further raise in the minimum wage from 7.15 to 8.50 an hour, and I will tell you why. Part of the article cites child care expenses for a typical family of four who is under the poverty threshold. Now, who do you think some of these current 7.15 an hour employees are? Right, aids at the child care centers these kids are sent to. Now, when there is a mandate to up that minimum wage to 8.50 an hour, what do you think the small business owners (in this case, child care provider) is going to do, when that cost of business is passed onto them, in the form of higher wages? Enact the "Marques of Queensbury" rules, or, more likely, raise its cost of tuition? And when that increase in tuition is made, it's essentially a wash, or, more likely, a net loss for that same family of four. Instead of leaving the marketplace alone, these left of center organizations insist upon more government intervention, which invariably results in the spreading of more misery throughout the business chain.
Of course, the socialists have an answer for this: it's called government takeover. That's right, we can all now have state-run mandatory pre-k, and resemble Soviet-era Russia just a little bit more.
If you are not in a financially secure position you should NOT be having children, period. I understand that people want families and such, but there are plenty of things that I cant afford that I make the grown up decision not to get...children are no different. Personally I find it to be a form of child abuse itself for those who insist on having a kid when they have absolutely no means of supporting it in a fair and reasonable way.
If you have a kid and then get fired or have some drastic financial situation thrust upon you, that is a different story.
I find it amusing the director of Poverty Research believes 'the government' (read yours and my wallet) should once again become involved, in the form of instituting a further raise in the minimum wage from 7.15 to 8.50 an hour, and I will tell you why. Part of the article cites child care expenses for a typical family of four who is under the poverty threshold. Now, who do you think some of these current 7.15 an hour employees are? Right, aids at the child care centers these kids are sent to. Now, when there is a mandate to up that minimum wage to 8.50 an hour, what do you think the small business owners (in this case, child care provider) is going to do, when that cost of business is passed onto them, in the form of higher wages? Enact the "Marques of Queensbury" rules, or, more likely, raise its cost of tuition? And when that increase in tuition is made, it's essentially a wash, or, more likely, a net loss for that same family of four. Instead of leaving the marketplace alone, these left of center organizations insist upon more government intervention, which invariably results in the spreading of more misery throughout the business chain.
Of course, the socialists have an answer for this: it's called government takeover. That's right, we can all now have state-run mandatory pre-k, and resemble Soviet-era Russia just a little bit more.
here's a concept these advocates for the poor should grasp onto, if you can't feed them, don't breed them. If only people would think a bit so many of society's issues could be averted
I was married in my 20's, we didn't have a lot of $$$. We decided to wait a few years before having children. The marriage didn't work out (Thank God) and I went on with my life.
Fast forward...remarried again at 38. Now, it is too late (in my case) to have children although we can more than afford it now.
Location: Some got six month some got one solid. But me and my buddies all got lifetime here
4,555 posts, read 10,403,877 times
Reputation: 2162
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Child care is absolutely NOT a "basic necessity"
If you are not in a financially secure position you should NOT be having children, period. I understand that people want families and such, but there are plenty of things that I cant afford that I make the grown up decision not to get...children are no different. Personally I find it to be a form of child abuse itself for those who insist on having a kid when they have absolutely no means of supporting it in a fair and reasonable way.
If you have a kid and then get fired or have some drastic financial situation thrust upon you, that is a different story.
Seriously. Who in their right mind believes it's their god given right to have children no matter what their financial situation may be. The couple highlighted in that article make 50,000 dollars in shared income and have four kids. That's just beyond irresponsible. And yet there she is, speaking at a statehouse news conference looking towards the state for help. Her and her husband clearly didn't have the ability to support a smaller family yet they kept going.
Maybe if she kept her legs closed after the first one or two she wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck. Horrible example used in that article.
I was married in my 20's, we didn't have a lot of $$$. We decided to wait a few years before having children. The marriage didn't work out (Thank God) and I went on with my life.
Fast forward...remarried again at 38. Now, it is too late (in my case) to have children although we can more than afford it now.
It's kind of cruel, huh?
Shanny
Nah- just adopt- solves your problem, and saves a kid from a potentially miserable existence elsewhere
Seriously. Who in their right mind believes it's their god given right to have children no matter what their financial situation may be. The couple highlighted in that article make 50,000 dollars in shared income and have four kids. That's just beyond irresponsible. And yet there she is, speaking at a statehouse news conference looking towards the state for help. Her and her husband clearly didn't have the ability to support a smaller family yet they kept going.
Maybe if she kept her legs closed after the first one or two she wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck. Horrible example used in that article.
and the HUSBAND bears no responsibility in this AT ALL. It's all on her. Lovely.
Seriously. Who in their right mind believes it's their god given right to have children no matter what their financial situation may be. The couple highlighted in that article make 50,000 dollars in shared income and have four kids. That's just beyond irresponsible. And yet there she is, speaking at a statehouse news conference looking towards the state for help. Her and her husband clearly didn't have the ability to support a smaller family yet they kept going.
Maybe if she kept her legs closed after the first one or two she wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck. Horrible example used in that article.
But wait- you'll soon hear from the "accidents happen" crowd, and the "sometimes unfortunate circumstances put people in situations they didn't plan for" crowd.
Using the example in the article, it sounds like maybe someone needs to get a second job to increase their family's income. I know when we were young, it wasn't unusual for my father to put in tons of overtime to bring in extra money, and my mother worked part-time to help out as well. Sounds like it's just easier to take another government handout rather than do what you've got to do to support the children you had.
Heres a govt program I would like to see put in place. If you want govt assistance you MUST be on birth control. I'll even go so far as to suggest the govt PAY for the birth control. It HAS to be cheaper than increasing the payout for another child.
Or, you are only provided assistance for the family that exists at the time you accepted it. If you then have more children you are on your own.
Finally, if you are unable to provide for your own family then maybe you should start thinking about putting your children up for adoption so they can atleast have the possibility of a better life than the one you cannot provide for them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
