Elizabeth Warren proposes free universal childcare to those with incomes of $50,000 or less (support, California)
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.
Free childcare is a Godsend for families that don't have non-working relatives readily available and willing, because obtaining it otherwise is so effin' expensive.
Not something from God but from the US Treasury. Funny how many on the left don't understand when a new entitlement is created someone has to pay for it. It does not just fall from the sky.
Here is an interesting cry story that the authors Americans to cry about.
"Vendor-support analyst" Single mother of four kids pays $25,000 a year for daycare, over half her income.
Some of her kids are school-aged so I would imagine they just go before and after, but still she chose to have 4 kids and now wants empathy because she pays half her income on childcare.
It says $25,000 is over half her income.
With Warren's plan taxpayers someone who has 4 kids like her would not pay one penny if there income was less than $58,000, if she made $60,000 she would pay $4,200 a year and taxpayers would pay $20,000+
What absolute nonsense? We have raised the social age of adulthood for mainly economic reasons, but we still haven't found a way to cheat biology yet. That's why tons of women who wait until their 30s to have their first child have trouble conceiving and have to turn to fertility treatments, which either don't work, or backfire and create an Octomom situation.
My mom was only 23 when she concieved me and 24 by the time I was born. And yes, my parents were married and had a house at the time. But more to the point, they didn't plan it. From the way they tell it, a condom broke. The average person who is married doesn't plan it out on some rigid schedule like a robot
The morning after pill or abortion is an option. I am not thrilled with abortions but they do server a purpose to irresponsible people.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
free universal childcare to those with incomes of $50,000 or less?
Now THAT'S what I call a worthwhile use of tax dollars. And who the eff cares about something so trivial as some allegation (regardless of its actual truth) that she lied about NatAm. That's laughably banal compared to what Big Orange did and still does.
Fauxcahontas is dancing to the beat of a different tom-tom than she was years ago when she wrote The Two Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. From the summary on Amazon
Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but actually has less discretionary income once their fixed monthly bills are paid.How did this happen? Warren and Tyagi provide convincing evidence that the culprit is not "overconsumption," as many critics have charged. Instead, they point to the ferocious bidding war for housing and education that has quietly engulfed America's suburbs. Stay-at-home mothers once provided a financial safety net if disaster struck; their move into the workforce has left today's families chillingly at risk. The authors show why the usual remedies--child-support enforcement, subsidized daycare, and higher salaries for women--won't solve the problem,
Healthcare, childcare, tax credits and other incentives definitely make having children sound more feasible.
If I were a family, I’d try to hit $50k while working as little as possible. They could live more like a family making $70k which is comfy in many/most areas.
The problem is it taking $70k to get to the point where you can make ends meet.
Not something from God but from the US Treasury. Funny how many on the left don't understand when a new entitlement is created someone has to pay for it. It does not just fall from the sky.
We are going further and further into debt. Why if we do not have to pay for our wars, do we need to pay for child care?
Spend trillions on wars and you get tac cuts. Why can't we enact child care and combine it with tax cuts? After all, the argument is tax cuts will spur the economy.
She has a birth control implant at the moment, because we as a society are disincentivizing reproduction to our own peril. Now that my fiance is 31, we are risking never being able to have children, and it sucks. If it were made easier to start a family instead of punished, we could have had a child by now.
She's 31, and you're worried she'll soon be too too old to get pregnant?
And we are disincentivizing having children? How so? Because the incentives - running from free education to child tax credits - aren't enough for you? You're saying unless taxpayers, including singles who never had children, fork over more of their hard-earned money to pay for your kids' daycare, we are disincentivizing having kids?
She has a birth control implant at the moment, because we as a society are disincentivizing reproduction to our own peril. Now that my fiance is 31, we are risking never being able to have children, and it sucks. If it were made easier to start a family instead of punished, we could have had a child by now.
My mother had me at 35. I’m the first of four. When she was in a place in life where she didn’t need handouts to raise us.
** wasn’t planned either. Accident child that started it all....
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.