Free Childcare

[Rexedgar]

I can't tell if you're losing track of the discussion or not.

The point was excessively costly college education is not *required* and there are states out there with much cheaper, in some cases free, costs of college tuition.

Then student debt should not be an issue. There are more economical alternatives.

Anything that the government gets involved in doesn’t necessarily make it better.

More specifically, you have avoided answer a question directly because the logic that follows would go against your previous assertions that college debt relief is wrong because A. It's their fault, and B. It's not fair to those who have been in their situation prior.

But as pointed out and admitted by yourself, life long smokers shouldn't be denied a hypothetical cure for lung cancer even though it was their own actions (and given all we know about smoking's side effects, their knowledge about its ill effects), so your own logic doesn't follow. Just because student debt was brought upon by themselves doesn't mean they aren't deserving of relief.

As was pointed out in my first reply to you, the conflating of student debt and healthcare is not a proper comparison, imo. I wish you would not cut off my posts, seems underhanded……

 

[Jredbaron96]

Then student debt should not be an issue.

There's over a trillion dollars worth of it, so I'd say there's an issue.

There are more economical alternatives.

Anything that the government gets involved in doesn’t necessarily make it better.

That's not my contention nor the source of the debate.

As was pointed out in my first reply to you, the conflating of student debt and healthcare is not a proper comparison, imo. I wish you would not cut off my posts, seems underhanded……

lol, the issue is not a comparison of healthcare. The usage of cancer was to point out the fault in your logic by saying relief shouldn't be on the table because it's A. Their fault and B. unfair to those who have resolved their issues. I showed this is fault logic with a comparison to cancer, specifically cancer caused by a life long smoking habit.

You admitted that this should not disqualify someone from getting a hypothetical cure for cancer, so your own logic does not follow.

 

[Rexedgar]

There's over a trillion dollars worth of it, so I'd say there's an issue.

Doesn’t address my point. You have pointed out more economical issues and then brought up barriers to those alternatives, culture travel, housing, etc.

That's not my contention nor the source of the debate.



lol, the issue is not a comparison of healthcare. The usage of cancer was to point out the fault in your logic by saying relief shouldn't be on the table because it's A. Their fault and B. unfair to those who have resolved their issues. I showed this is fault logic with a comparison to cancer, specifically cancer caused by a life long smoking habit.

You admitted that this should not disqualify someone from getting a hypothetical cure for cancer, so your own logic does not follow.

The source of our debate is the comparison of healthcare and education

Not paying for someone’s post high school education is not a death sentence. My objection was/is your analogy. You haven’t disproven any logic with your false equivalency.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Doesn’t address my point. You have pointed out more economical issues and then brought up barriers to those alternatives, culture travel, housing, etc.

No, I pointed out that low cost college tuition is possible as evident by its wide spread practice in other countries.

The source of our debate is the comparison of healthcare and education

No, that's just the cover you're using to avoid the implication of your own logic.

 

[Rexedgar]

No, I pointed out that low cost college tuition is possible as evident by its wide spread practice in other countries.



No, that's just the cover you're using to avoid the implication of your own logic.

That’s the third time, at least, that you have truncated one of my posts.

This is the third time I have pointed it out, you go throw stuff on another wall……..

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

This is one item that Congress is mulling over in one of these mega spending deals.
How is this going to work? Will there be standards to be met before a business can accept children. Will there be price controls? How will fraud be addressed? Whenever the government becomes the paymaster, the crooks line up….Social Security, Medicare, pretty much any program that Uncle Sam gets into, the money disappears real quick.

Oprah got nothing on the gubbmint….

That should be the replacemetn for welfare. Pepole can't work if they have nobody to take care of kids. Childcare costs more than what they could make in their low pay jobs. Provide childcare, the peopel could work.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

**** that.

You want a kid, you pay for it. I had 3, I paid. This is ridiculous. Liberal crap gone wild.

And this is the selfishness and lack of empathy that pretty much every conservative has. I got mine, **** everybody else. How much you want to bet you had your 3 kids at a time when a single income was all that was needed? or that you make enough money to afford childcare. Or have someone who could help you? but hey, your little experience represents the entire world. UNreal how little conservatives ever think about the real world, and its not only their limited experience

Fact is, half the country makes under 50K, and it just keeps getting worse while you people worship the disgusting greed of the wealthy who could pay livable wages and still be uber rich. So there goes teh "get a better job" nonsense, it unrealistic in todays world of weatlhy taking all the profits. ANd when did " you shouldn't have kids if you can't blah blah blah" ever work to actually stop people from having sex and possibly accidentally having kids? Never. The only crap I see here is what conservatives always bring, nothing but crap, no intelligence, pure selfishness and judgments

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

so how do you explain that we have universal healthcare (paid through taxes), everyone gets quality treatment (no need to give me bull about it not being quality, I have lived here all my life and never had anything but the best care), we have a lower infant mortality rate, longer life expectancy, way lower drug prices and we pay LESS per capita than Americans do? Of course, NOTHING is free, that is a misnomer, but so is this canard that the cost is shifted to someone else. I mean, really - do you not pay for roads that EVERYONE else uses?
sheesh!

All these people live by is dumb talking points they get from fox news and other propaganda garbage. The benefits of all those spending is astronomical. Better schools, roads, healthcare, not being bankrupted, getting paid enough to not need help or live in poverty, lower poverty rates, lower crime, increase rehabilitation instead of just punishment. But we are talking about simple minded, selfish people with no empathy, so no amount of facts and reality will matter

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Im not right wing. Im against paying for other peoples personal choices, which coincidently used ot be right wing, but is pretty much only libertarian now.

YEah, sure thing. Smells and walks like shit, it is shit

Another moderator that needs an ignore. Since I cant, just do me favor and dont respond to my posts anymore.

LOL, LIke you add anything of intelligence here LOL

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Childcare costs have gone up more than twenty-fold in the last forty years while wages have remained stagnant until only just recently, noonereal. And while I have no doubt you worked your fingers to the bone to take care of your kids, if you paid for childcare costs in 1980s, 1990s or even early 2000s your bills were far lower than parent's now even when adjusted for inflation. When you combine that with student loan debt that so many young people have, you are basically saying that most of an entire generation (specifically Millennials) should remain permanently childless. I think that will be far more damaging for our country and lead to our economic stagnation and decline at the very least than having government-supported childcare like that of Scandinavian countries.

And not only that, wages have stagnated. Housing costs through the roofs. It's a totally different world. My parents, in the 70s, had 3 kids. Dad was finishging masters, mom didn't work. They not only could afford that (in NYC), they were able to buy a duplex in Queens. One income and not even a huge salary jobs. Had help from my grandparents, where only my grandpa worked, and at a warehouse. He could afford his own house as well at that jobs.

Now even college degree kids are making shit, all for what? So the uber wealthy hordes it all? Totally different world

 

[ClaraD]

This is one item that Congress is mulling over in one of these mega spending deals.
How is this going to work? Will there be standards to be met before a business can accept children. Will there be price controls? How will fraud be addressed? Whenever the government becomes the paymaster, the crooks line up….Social Security, Medicare, pretty much any program that Uncle Sam gets into, the money disappears real quick.

Oprah got nothing on the gubbmint….

I actually think that child care should be sliding scale and funded in credits for those who cannot afford it. For instance if the mom of 3 makes 15 an hour...she would pay up to 20% of her income for childcare. That is $120 a week or $480 a month, less than she would pay for 1 child now, but low enough she can afford it....the only time it should be free is if someone is making less than $9 an hour.

 

[ClaraD]

As I understand it, the child’s household gets a monthly (per child) government payment (refundable tax credit?) which can be used as that household sees fit. Whether that idea is “fair“ depends on loads of things, but mostly whether it is a fixed amount (plenty in lower cost rural areas but peanuts in higher cost urban areas) and whether it varies based on need (gets reduced as household income increases - after all, a household making $300K/year is not likely to need a tax break, much less a government handout).

it shouldn't be a government payment to the parents....it should be a payment directly to the daycare...imo.

 

[ClaraD]

nah nah, not so. We raise the same questions from time to time in Canada too. Free child care has never passed. But we have all sorts of programs, from welfare, to disability benefits, to universal health care, and the Government administers those programs just fine. Free child care is a bit wonky, even for a liberal like me. I might give you this though, maybe Uncle Sam isn't as good at managing money as the Canadian government, on that I could agree. but you know, Canada, we do everything better anyways

my husband said he would rather see the government get rid of the subsidy payments of TANF and the EITC and provide childcare free than these...and that would be a good trade off.

 

[ClaraD]

**** that.

You want a kid, you pay for it. I had 3, I paid. This is ridiculous. Liberal crap gone wild.

what you paid is substantially less than it is now...the same is true for me. I paid for 4...but my costs were less than what 2 cost now.

 

[ClaraD]

Im not right wing. Im against paying for other peoples personal choices, which coincidently used ot be right wing, but is pretty much only libertarian now.

libertarians are ultra right wing.

 

[ClaraD]

We dont have the worst health care system in the world. Thats just you showing that you dont know what you are talking about. We have the best healthcare in the world. It just happens to be expensive. But the best of anything tends to be the most expensive. Thats how things work in the real world. And no amount of your socialist day dreaming is going to change that.

No, we don't have the best healthcare in the world...France does.....and they also have national healthcare.

 

[noonereal]

And this is the selfishness and lack of empathy that pretty much every conservative has. I got mine, **** everybody else. How much you want to bet you had your 3 kids at a time when a single income was all that was needed? or that you make enough money to afford childcare. Or have someone who could help you? but hey, your little experience represents the entire world. UNreal how little conservatives ever think about the real world, and its not only their limited experience

Fact is, half the country makes under 50K, and it just keeps getting worse while you people worship the disgusting greed of the wealthy who could pay livable wages and still be uber rich. So there goes teh "get a better job" nonsense, it unrealistic in todays world of weatlhy taking all the profits. ANd when did " you shouldn't have kids if you can't blah blah blah" ever work to actually stop people from having sex and possibly accidentally having kids? Never. The only crap I see here is what conservatives always bring, nothing but crap, no intelligence, pure selfishness and judgments

Cry me a river.

 

[noonereal]

what you paid is substantially less than it is now...the same is true for me. I paid for 4...but my costs were less than what 2 cost now.

So what?

Look how cheap financing a home is now. Get a smaller home and pay for your own damned kids.

 

[ClaraD]

So what?

Look how cheap financing a home is now. Get a smaller home and pay for your own damned kids.

Homes used to cost less than $10,000...so, while they may be cheaper to finance interest wise, they are not cheaper to own or pay for. The house I was born in was about $9000. That same house just sold for $165,000 in 2020. So, in just 50 years that homes value went up from 9k to 165k...actually, to be clearer...the house sold for 40k in 2010 and 10 years later was worth 165k without any substantial changes to it. Minimum wage was $2 an hour when I was born. So, $80 a week or $320 a month. Today the minimum wage is $7.25 or $290 a week or $1160 a month. For that house you would have to work 143 months, paying 100% of your gross income to pay be able to reach 165k(without the interest.) That is 12 years....in 1971, you would have had to work 28 months, paying 100% of your gross income toward the house without interest. See the difference?

 

[ttwtt78640]

it shouldn't be a government payment to the parents....it should be a payment directly to the daycare...imo.

That won’t buy as many votes or lay the proper foundation to become an IRS supplied UBI.

 

[ClaraD]

That won’t buy as many votes or lay the proper foundation to become an IRS supplied UBI.

it would be easier to administrate and easier to make sure that the payments go to a qualified daycare or person competent to care for the kid...and not going for other expenditures.

 

[Lucky 1]

I see. How many of your children went to college? You are aware that No College is a career impediment about equivalent to Being Black, right?

All my kids have college degrees.

My oldest daughter has a masters degree in education and worked two jobs through school.
Oldest son is an aircraft engineer and works as a civilian contractor at the local navy base
The two youngest are both registered nurses (working like animals during covid)

ALL of them worked through school

My two oldest grandsons are in private school because the public schools have turned to shit.

 

[weaver2]

Basically, the problem is that people who can't afford to provide their own needs and wants much less the needs and wants of a child or children shouldn't be having them until they can afford them.

Whether or not to provide this service, subsidized child care, to low wage workers is not the question. The question we should be asking is why is this group of people all of whom are working regular jobs are having to depend on the government to help with their food, housing, health insurance, heating fuels (in the north) and daycare costs. These are people working 5 days a week 6 to 10 hours a day yet can't support a family even with two people working.

Nobody is asking why people who work 30 to 50 hours a week can't pay for their basic needs.

This is not happening in small isolated groups in one or two states. Across the nation low wage workers are, to some extent, dependent on subsidies for basic living costs which they should be able to pay themselves. And this is happening at a time when the employers of these people (ex. big box stores, grocery chains, e-commerce corporations) are taking in their biggest profits, paying their C-suite administrators higher salaries and both are paying the lowest taxes in decades.

Exactly who is it we are we subsidizing?

 

[noonereal]

Homes used to cost less than $10,000

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great post, great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is significantly easier to buy a first home today than in 1980, this is a fact.

Be honest and run the numbers, it's not even close. Not by a lot.

Peace

 

[Felis Leo]

Whether or not to provide this service, subsidized child care, to low wage workers is not the question. The question we should be asking is why is this group of people all of whom are working regular jobs are having to depend on the government to help with their food, housing, health insurance, heating fuels (in the north) and daycare costs. These are people working 5 days a week 6 to 10 hours a day yet can't support a family even with two people working.

Nobody is asking why people who work 30 to 50 hours a week can't pay for their basic needs.

This is not happening in small isolated groups in one or two states. Across the nation low wage workers are, to some extent, dependent on subsidies for basic living costs which they should be able to pay themselves. And this is happening at a time when the employers of these people (ex. big box stores, grocery chains, e-commerce corporations) are taking in their biggest profits, paying their C-suite administrators higher salaries and both are paying the lowest taxes in decades.

Exactly who is it we are we subsidizing?

^ This is the most incisive post in this thread yet.