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.
Calling BS on this. Nobody says everything would be perfect. All the time. Every time. Nobody said that or even implied it.
Then please explain everyone stating that IF someone would just use birth control...IF they would just talk over having kids...IF this...IF that...If people would just be more responsible...
You know as well as I do that the people who use the IF statements never want to plan for exceptions or contingencies and that's because they have a control problem. They think if they could just control everyone to live and think the same way they do, there would be no problems.
That's like the people who say if all kids were taught abstinence, there would never be a problem with unwanted babies. We both know that's unrealistic thinking.
Quote:
But as for Way #2, reality. Bad decisions must be met with bad outcomes. I don't owe some idiot a good outcome to his bad decision. If you want to give that person "a few dollars", then knock yourself out. A 35% income tax and sales taxes and real estate taxes and excise taxes and everything else total something like 60% of our income. That is not a few dollars. That is a whole sh**load of people gaming the system and stealing from others.
Way #2 reality should be met with reality: starvation, a decrepit existence, misery, pain. That way others will not choose to make "mistakes".
Executions in jail don't seem to stop others from doing crime. Neither do life sentences. From all the shootings and murders in the country, it doesn't seem like anyone is taking one bit of notice of the examples in prison. Because if they did, by this time in history no one would ever do anything wrong.
And what if you made a mistake? Were you perfect as a teenager? What about your teenagers? Have they ever made a mistake and if they did, do you believe they should live the rest of their lives with starvation, a decrepit existence, misery, and pain? Do you think one mistake or even a couple mistakes actually deserve that punishment? I'm not religious, but the last I heard, even God will forgive people if they ask him to.
Quote:
"Mistakes" are prevalent right now because there is no cost. In fact, they are incentivized and encouraged by redistributive policy that strips the good people and benefits the bad people.
Let's make reality REAL.
And I don't care how many there are, if a parent neglects their "mistake" of a child, then that child should be removed and reassigned to adoptive or foster care. Or even orphanages if that's what it takes. I don't mind paying for a hungry 5 year old. I MIND PAYING FOR A 35 YEAR OLD who has 6 kids and games the system and is drunk or stoned and "disabled" and unable to work.
I've already addressed what happens when children are removed from a home and put in foster care. Maybe instead of raging about it, you should try doing something positive that will contribute to fewer children being born, like supporting your local Planned Parenthood or writing your congressman and demanding that all health benefits include birth control plans.
Again, you have the mistaken idea that if parents make a mistake, they will pay for it. Unfortunately, that's not true. Parents sometimes, but usually don't, pay for their mistakes. But their kids always do. All you do when you show the hate and rage that you do is make their lives more miserable.
And the reality is that sometimes paying for a hungry 5 year old means giving money to his parents so they can all eat, whether you like it or not.
EDIT: You as a taxpayer paid for the bailout of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc after 2008. Do you have anger for the people who ran those companies, too, or is your anger only directed at poor people who need a helping hand? I'm not being snarky, I'm really curious.
Last edited by rodentraiser; 05-13-2017 at 12:24 AM..
Isn't more women in the work force part of the reason families now have to rely on a Dual-Income system to begin with? Did we magically create a ton of new jobs that have been open all this time just waiting for a surplus of labor?
Actually I think it was WWII and the necessity of keeping labor going while men were overseas that started that trend. However, the only alternative now is to make it difficult and socially unacceptable for women to work outside the house like it was in the 1880s. And the ship's already sailed on that one. You won't be putting women back into lives they don't want to have ever again.
And even if by some chance you did and women were forced to stay home and be the little housewife and mother, even if they were unhappy about having to do that...well, have you ever heard the saying that if mama ain't happy, no one's happy?
Right, some do and some don't hence the reason why you can't say that one is better then the other. Or that all kids need daycare. Just like it would be silly for me to say that all kids would be better off at home with mom. The ideal situation varies based on the variables.
Daycare is very different in the US. Teachers will step in quickly for the same reason why you think parents will step in too quickly in playdate situations.
That's why daycare needs to be high quality, with evidence-based curriculum and practices and run by educated staff - with that kind of daycare you don't get teachers stepping in too quickly because they know its not best practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatsnext75
Haha...ok i cant stand people who work the system and are on welfare or use an ebt card...but you are too much. Poor people are going to have childen whether you like it or not.
The scary thing is poor people have more kids than educated people with money..educated people with money tend to have kids in their 30s may have just 2...young poor people start at 20 and dont stop until 40.
What will become of our country?
An interesting thing - in my country, with all its benefits for poor families and 'socialism', its the higher educated parents that have more children, not the lower educated ones. The lower educated parents wait longer to have children and have less of them, so maybe making the system more equal with benefits and 'socialism' works out better in the end?
Gaming the system makes me laugh. Cause being poor is just so much fun...
You are missing a few major points people are trying to make.
First, kids do not get to choose to be born. They don't get to choose what economic class they are born into. So you are 100% ok with allowing a child to suffer, even starve, because their parent made, what you deem, a bad decision? The most vulnerable of us all, children, is who suffers. That's cool with you?
And even more importantly, if you do care about you over having empathy, it is good for our entire nation (and there by good for you) to have healthy, well educated, well adjusted adults. Which starts in childhood. If someone wont or cant provide that for their child, there is absolute benefit for us as a society to do so.
Except, when people refuse to control themselves a little or take a step back before they hop in the sack and resort to their animal instincts and pop out babies like rabbits, without giving thought to the repercussions, because they are mainly too stupid, then they should take full responsibility for that. Not me.
In the first 1/2 of last century (1900-1950s, 60s) formalized daycare didn't exist for the most part, and we had a more well educated, well adjusted populace. Of course these were times when parents parented and schools taught the things that created well educated people.
In many states like mine in NJ, school costs are going through the roof as it is, and property taxes have been out of control for decades. Making it worse by forcing people to pay more for daycare will do nothing but create one big cesspool of a state. Some think it already is that way.
If change is needed anywhere, it is in teaching young adults and kids personal responsibility. This is what is lacking today, among many other things.
I think that OP makes a good point. I don't even have children, but I think that if parents had consistent access to free or affordable childcare, their attendance at work would be more consistent, they could support their families better, and the family as a whole would function more smoothly. The income guidelines for subsidized childcare are quite low, and many people fail to realize that there is the additional issue of finding providers that accept government vouchers. There aren't many. So, I think daycare maybe shouldn't be free, but much reduced in price, even if our taxes are raised a little. They're a lot more important that feeding the ravenous war machine, and they deserve to have consistent quality care.
Seems to me as if daycare should be one service that should be free and funded by the government. If they can spend billions on killing people that pose no threat to us, surely they could fund something that actually matters.
How would you pay for this? Would you also support a credit to childless couples or seniors who don't have children? Totally absurd. If you have children the cost of caring for them should be on your shoulders not on the backs of the taxpayers.
That's why daycare needs to be high quality, with evidence-based curriculum and practices and run by educated staff - with that kind of daycare you don't get teachers stepping in too quickly because they know its not best practice.
It would be nice if daycare, preschool and school was like that here in the US but it's not and I don't see it changing anytime soon. The daycare, pre-schools and schools that are like the ones you describe are usually private and expensive.
"Mistakes" are prevalent right now because there is no cost. In fact, they are incentivized and encouraged by redistributive policy that strips the good people and benefits the bad people.
Let's make reality REAL.
And I don't care how many there are, if a parent neglects their "mistake" of a child, then that child should be removed and reassigned to adoptive or foster care. Or even orphanages if that's what it takes. I don't mind paying for a hungry 5 year old. I MIND PAYING FOR A 35 YEAR OLD who has 6 kids and games the system and is drunk or stoned and "disabled" and unable to work.
I'll agree, in part. Part of the reason we stopped after one child was the affordability issue.
Assistance is one thing. I can understand having a child or two and needing assistance. I don't want to call a child a "mistake", but I know what you mean. When we get to child number 5, 6 or even numbers 9, 10, 11, or 12 it's no longer an "ooops" situation. That's taking advantage.
"Should daycare be free?"
Ask a daycare provider that question and you will have your answer.
Oh... wait, you're asking if the government should point a gun at my head and force me to give up my money to pay for the care of your child?
NO.
TANSTAAFL.
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.
