Elizabeth Warren proposes free universal childcare to those with incomes of $50,000 or less (wage, illegal aliens)

[RowingFiend]

Nope. It's not my job to pay for your kid's day care. If you can't afford a child, don't have one.

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by cb2008

Then you should decline social security and medicare when you get old because everyone else’s kids will be paying for yours.

I don’t plan on needing either. But your post is wrong, if I do collect those I will have paid for them through my payroll taxes my whole life.

[Eumaois]

Do any White Cherokees endorse her?

[20yrsinBranson]

First of all, people with children get a tax credit, which amounts to nearly $5,000 per child. They also can take childcare expenses of their income. Free daycare would amount to a significant amount of money that a person without a child would not be "entitled" to. Kind of smacks of discrimination, if you ask me. Having a child is a 100% voluntary event. No one is FORCED to have a child, so since it is optional, I think the parents should accept the consequences of their actions.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

If they are making $50,000 or less, they shouldn't be having children.

If people waited until they hit some arbitrary limit, no one would have children, and within 100 years, no more human race

[photobuff42]

Don't have kids until you can afford to pay their way, as well as your own. Problem solved.

I don't want to pay for your child care.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

With birthrates continuing to fall, there should be some incentives offered to at least get to replacement level birthrates again. To the "if you can't afford them, don't have them" crowd, if everyone followed your advice, no one would have children, because by the time the majority would be "ready", they'd be too old to concieve. Then in about 100 years, USA population 0. Is that what you guys want?

[photobuff42]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

With birthrates continuing to fall, there should be some incentives offered to at least get to replacement level birthrates again. To the "if you can't afford them, don't have them" crowd, if everyone followed your advice, no one would have children, because by the time the majority would be "ready", they'd be too old to concieve. Then in about 100 years, USA population 0. Is that what you guys want?

Absolutely. It won't affect my corpse (or my wallet) at all.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

With birthrates continuing to fall, there should be some incentives offered to at least get to replacement level birthrates again. To the "if you can't afford them, don't have them" crowd, if everyone followed your advice, no one would have children, because by the time the majority would be "ready", they'd be too old to concieve. Then in about 100 years, USA population 0. Is that what you guys want?

SO, instead of addressing the birth rate issue, you just want to tax, tax, and tax some more?

If you notice, most if not all first world countries have a low birth rate, and the rate increases the worse the country is.

So, if your goal is to increase the birth rate, you are essentially setting a goal to make the US worse off, as that correlates with an increase in the birth rate.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by boxus

SO, instead of addressing the birth rate issue, you just want to tax, tax, and tax some more?

If you notice, most if not all first world countries have a low birth rate, and the rate increases the worse the country is.

So, if your goal is to increase the birth rate, you are essentially setting a goal to make the US worse off, as that correlates with an increase in the birth rate.

We need a replacement level birthrate, not a growing population birthrate. Again, if we continue below replacement levels, not only will the population decline pretty rapidly short of letting in immigrants, but it will also leave more and more jobs unfilled hurting the economy