• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It Takes a Policy...

David_N

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
6,562
Reaction score
2,769
Location
The United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
.. To help families with children in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/it-takes-a-policy.html?_r=0
U.S. politicians love to pose as defenders of family values. Unfortunately, this pose is often, perhaps usually, one of remarkable hypocrisy.

And no, I’m not talking about the contrast between public posturing and personal behavior, although this contrast can be extreme. Which is more amazing: the fact that a long-serving Republican speaker of the House sexually abused teenage boys, or how little attention this revelation has received?
Instead, I’m talking about policy. Judged by what we actually do — or, more accurately, don’t do — to help small children and their parents, America is unique among advanced countries in its utter indifference to the lives of its youngest citizens.
For example, almost all advanced countries provide paid leave from work for new parents. We don’t. Our public expenditure on child care and early education, as a share of income, is near the bottom in international rankings (although if it makes you feel better, we do slightly edge out Estonia.)
In other words, if you judge us by what we do, not what we say, we place very little value on the lives of our children, unless they happen to come from affluent families. Did I mention that parents in the top fifth of U.S. households spend seven times as much on their children as parents in the bottom fifth?
In January, both Democratic candidates declared their support for a program that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to care for newborns and other family members. And last week, while the news media was focused on Donald Trump’s imaginary friend, I mean imaginary spokesman, Hillary Clinton announced an ambitious plan to improve both the affordability and quality of U.S. child care.
When we talk about doing more for children, it’s important to realize that it costs money, but not all that much money. Why? Because there aren’t that many young children at any given time, and it doesn’t take a lot of spending to make a huge difference to their lives. Our threadbare system of public support for child care and early education costs 0.4 percent of the G.D.P.; France’s famously generous system costs 1.2 percent of the G.D.P. So we could move a long way up the scale with a fairly modest investment.
And it would indeed be an investment — every bit as much of an investment as spending money to repair and improve our transportation infrastructure. After all, today’s children are tomorrow’s workers and taxpayers. So it’s an incredible waste, not just for families but for the nation as a whole, that so many children’s futures are stunted because their parents don’t have the resources to take care of them as well as they should. And affordable child care would also have the immediate benefit of making it easier for parents to work productively.

Of course, there will always be the people who argue against anything related to government:
Are there any reasons not to spend a bit more on children? The usual suspects will, of course, go on about the evils of big government, the sacred nature of individual choice, the wonders of free markets, and so on. But the market for child care, like the market for health care, works very badly in practice.
 
Well, if you want to recreate the orphanage system and remove children from drug and alcohol compromised parents who let their children run feral, then count me in. As it is now, and the way a new program will turn out, it is just one more government program designed to fleece taxpayers with more social workers who don't get the job done.

The other crime is how Hastert left DC with $17 million when he began his career as a high school coach.

The elite politicians are all screwing someone among us.
 
What in the hell does that the actions of a child molester have to do with the rest of the article? Random much?
 
What in the hell does that the actions of a child molester have to do with the rest of the article? Random much?

Read it again:
U.S. politicians love to pose as defenders of family values. Unfortunately, this pose is often, perhaps usually, one of remarkable hypocrisy.

And no, I’m not talking about the contrast between public posturing and personal behavior, although this contrast can be extreme. Which is more amazing: the fact that a long-serving Republican speaker of the House sexually abused teenage boys, or how little attention this revelation has received?
 
Read it again:

What does any of that have to do with anything? The rest of the article is about government programs, which has nothing what so ever to do with what republicans think of family values.

You can't claim people are violating their values by mentioning something that has nothing to do with their values.
 
Last edited:
So the Government steps in as to take up the role parents have abdicated. The hope is, that this will end the cycle ,right? Well it hasn't.
 
I'm sure the American Congress and next President can be trusted to get a Parent Provision and Affordable Childcare Act just right :)
 
So...basically, it's like Chevrolets are like trees, which means oregano tastes like cotton candy.

Got it.
 
Back
Top Bottom