Whitmer to call for plan to provide pre-K for all 4-year-olds in Michigan

[Carjosse]

They ALREADY had that choice. The only ones being forced are the taxpayers. 13 years of government run school /childcare seems to be enough.

Well then you get what you got.

Some people have different priorities.

Many actually did not have the choice because of the cost. Now they will have the choice. And this is a benefit to taxpayers, programs like this almost always pay for themselves and then some.

 

[Tender Branson]

Most "western" European countries? So, which countries do you include - UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Italy, Leichtenstein, Luxemborg, Vatican City, Monaco, Belgium, Netherlands? What other countries? School in Germany starts at age 6. Ireland 6, Italy 6, Norway 6....Spain, 6, Sweden 7, Switzerland 5 ish, --- I've gone through a bunch of those. The only one with a earlier start year is France, age 3.

"Most western European countries", really?

So, by all means, list the western euro countries that have "often free of charge" school for toddlers.

I don't know what you are posting about ... it seems you are mixing "school" (which starts at 6) with "kindergarten" (which starts at 2 and runs to 5) ?

"Kindergarten" is often free in many countries and school too (except for extra-curricula activities).

 

[ALiberalModerate]

More "cheese". The state is proposing to babysit your kids for yet ANOTHER year of their life. They are not even hiding that the main driver behind this is shifting child care costs to the taxpayers.

Starting the indoctrination earlier. [sigh]

This is what we get in Michigan for electing a democrat house, senate (first time in 40 years) and governor.

Next they are gonna start coming after us home-schoolers. Starting with just a "registration" program to know who is out there. We will not be registering anybody regardless of any potential new law. Who's kids are they?

Whitmer to call for plan to provide pre-K for all 4-year-olds in Michigan

The plan, which Whitmer is expected to announce Wednesday, could become a reality with Democrats in full control of the state government.

www.detroitnews.com

Joey Cappelletti Associated Press

"
Lansing — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is expected to announce a plan during her State of the State speech Wednesday to provide pre-kindergarten education for all 4-year-olds in Michigan in an attempt to help families with rising costs.

The plan, which Whitmer has pushed since she first ran for governor in 2018, could become a reality with Democrats in full control of the state government for the first time in decades.

Building on the state's Great Start Readiness Program covering at-risk children of low-income families, the proposal would ensure all 110,000 of the state's 4-year-olds can attend prekindergarten. The plan would save families on average about $10,000 in childcare costs, according to a statement from the governor’s office.

“Every parent knows an early start is critical to their child’s future," Whitmer said in a statement to The Associated Press."

The science on the issue disagrees with you. Children that receive early childhood education at ages 3 and 4 are much more likely to graduate high school, much less likely to be enrolled in special education programs, and much more likely to earn a living wage in an adulthood. They are also more likely to own their own home as adults and much less likely to ever need government assistance as adults.

Buffett Institute - Early Childhood Education Matters The Science Is Screaming It Does

buffettinstitute.nebraska.edu

 

[The flaming lib]

View attachment 67434249



View attachment 67434251

Im sure the Biden administration has worked that out when they controlled everything right? I mean they bitch about taxes all the time and making the rich pay soooo when they controlled everything they could easily pass YUGE tax hikes on the rich. Right? Right?
any day now, right?

 

[Peacenik]

You didn't answer my question. The rich can be taxed out of existence by the way.

Also, Read Atlas Shrugged.

Have already suffered through that miserable piece, and with great regret at having wasted so much time doing so. Talk of an author badly in need of an aggressive editor. A serious let down for anyone expecting something of substance. 9/10 of it could be summarily dismissed and still easily tell the whimsical fantasy. It bears no relation to reality; cannot be used as any kind of example for what real people face in the real world. It is complete fiction. 1200 pages of ramblings on and on about the mixed up scatterbrained fears of a very poorly adjusted woman quite detached from reality and possessing an unreasonable fear of government.

Perpetual motion machines, indeed. Yeah, right. Amazing special steel; stronger, lighter and cheaper than actual steel. Yeah, right. People acting like drones lacking any enthusiasm nor character simply due to a greedy out of control government nothing like our own. A special magical hidden valley the government has no jurisdiction over, where everyone respects one another because they are all honest capitalists and there is no government. What nonsense. The woman had serious issues, that's for sure. The original highly negative reviews were spot on. Silent Spring was far superior.

My advice to anyone considering reading that boring thing would be to skip it, save the time, and bone up on an account of it instead. Everything needed to discuss it can be learned in far less time than reading 1200 pages. Reading it would be a lost chunk of one's life never to be recovered, with nothing to show for it except disgust that anything so scatterbrained could be ever be considered as literature.

 

[Paradoxical]

Have already suffered through that miserable piece, and with great regret at having wasted so much time doing so. Talk of an author badly in need of an aggressive editor. A serious let down for anyone expecting something of substance. 9/10 of it could be summarily dismissed and still easily tell the whimsical fantasy. It bears no relation to reality; cannot be used as any kind of example for what real people face in the real world. It is complete fiction. 1200 pages of ramblings on and on about the mixed up scatterbrained fears of a very poorly adjusted woman quite detached from reality and possessing an unreasonable fear of government.

Perpetual motion machines, indeed. Yeah, right. Amazing special steel; stronger, lighter and cheaper than actual steel. Yeah, right. People acting like drones lacking any enthusiasm nor character simply due to a greedy out of control government nothing like our own. A special magical hidden valley the government has no jurisdiction over, where everyone respects one another because they are all honest capitalists and there is no government. What nonsense. The woman had serious issues, that's for sure. The original highly negative reviews were spot on. Silent Spring was far superior.

My advice to anyone considering reading that boring thing would be to skip it, save the time, and bone up on an account of it instead. Everything needed to discuss it can be learned in far less time than reading 1200 pages. Reading it would be a lost chunk of one's life never to be recovered, with nothing to show for it except disgust that anything so scatterbrained could be ever be considered as literature.

I read it cover to cover and what she described is what humanity is. You are trying to tweak it and force people to labor for those who don't care to. You do that by contending those who did do the work have far too much and you will take that from them to give to those who have little by asserting they were unlucky.

 

[Peacenik]

I read it cover to cover and what she described is what humanity is. You are trying to tweak it and force people to labor for those who don't care to. You do that by contending those who did do the work have far too much and you will take that from them to give to those who have little by asserting they were unlucky.

The real problem with that book is that the special golden valley of capitalists is all employers and no workers to exploit. Only those of 'acceptable values' are permitted in the special magical valley of pure capitalism, which right there wrecks the whole idea that it could in any way represent the real world. Everyone is not like that.

Most American workers are not capitalists at all. They work hard for other motivations besides increased profit. The only people profiting from their labor are the employers and investors. American workers work hard because it is natural to do so, it feels good to do a job well, it passes the time, and they get paid to do it. Many try to outdo co-workers and excel not because of any reward. No, it is not the carrot of advancement that motivates many workers, but the stick of the threat of job loss and destitution. Don't put out that extra effort and get fired. Profit is not the motivator for most. It is threat of income loss.

No normally adjusted person wants to be on the dole, with all the associated shame of that. The dole is for depressed people who did not have a rosy childhood nor an upbringing which has instilled in them any particular measure of self-confidence nor a belief that they could prosper through sheer dedication to purpose. People work hard because it feels good to be a productive member of society. The sense of overall accomplishment is the major motivation for most workers. The paycheck is of course a large motivating factor as well, but since most workers are paid by the hour or year, working harder does not pay more. All it does is lend a sometimes misplaced belief that it leads to job security.

Government jobs provide excellent job security. Capitalist jobs often do not, regardless of dedication to an employer. Capitalists turn workers out onto the street by the thousands with no regard to their well-being, nor that of the community, simply because of chasing after more and more profits elsewhere.

Capitalism is all fine and well. We need capitalism as much as we need government to properly regulate capitalism. Neither can well exist without the other in the modern industrial world. The real challenge is to arrive at the correct balance between capitalism and government.

Capitalism without proper government regulation is doomed to self-destruct. It is only a matter of time. We all have to face it that we need a big massive and effective government to manage our nation and our economy.

 

[Paradoxical]

The real problem with that book is that the special golden valley of capitalists is all employers and no workers to exploit. Only those of 'acceptable values' are permitted in the special magical valley of pure capitalism, which right there wrecks the whole idea that it could in any way represent the real world. Everyone is not like that.

Most American workers are not capitalists at all. They work hard for other motivations besides increased profit. The only people profiting from their labor are the employers and investors. American workers work hard because it is natural to do so, it feels good to do a job well, it passes the time, and they get paid to do it. Many try to outdo co-workers and excel not because of any reward. No, it is not the carrot of advancement that motivates many workers, but the stick of the threat of job loss and destitution. Don't put out that extra effort and get fired. Profit is not the motivator for most. It is threat of income loss.

No normally adjusted person wants to be on the dole, with all the associated shame of that. The dole is for depressed people who did not have a rosy childhood nor an upbringing which has instilled in them any particular measure of self-confidence nor a belief that they could prosper through sheer dedication to purpose. People work hard because it feels good to be a productive member of society. The sense of overall accomplishment is the major motivation for most workers. The paycheck is of course a large motivating factor as well, but since most workers are paid by the hour or year, working harder does not pay more. All it does is lend a sometimes misplaced belief that it leads to job security.

Government jobs provide excellent job security. Capitalist jobs often do not, regardless of dedication to an employer. Capitalists turn workers out onto the street by the thousands with no regard to their well-being, nor that of the community, simply because of chasing after more and more profits elsewhere.

Capitalism is all fine and well. We need capitalism as much as we need government to properly regulate capitalism. Neither can well exist without the other in the modern industrial world. The real challenge is to arrive at the correct balance between capitalism and government.

Capitalism without proper government regulation is doomed to self-destruct. It is only a matter of time. We all have to face it that we need a big massive and effective government to manage our nation and our economy.

Life itself is never fair. You want to impose your ideal of fairness onto others by exploiting THEIR labor by taking from them that which you think is excess. The ultimate end game of that is that everyone is the same. mediocre. When that happens, humanity descends into chaos.

 

[Peacenik]

Life itself is never fair. You want to impose your ideal of fairness onto others by exploiting THEIR labor by taking from them that which you think is excess. The ultimate end game of that is that everyone is the same. mediocre. When that happens, humanity descends into chaos.

That is an irrational fear. But at least we have progressed from the fear of taxing the rich into poverty. (Something which has never happened.) Progressive taxation would never produce equal wealth because the larger brackets only tax the amounts over what everyone else earns.

But just to explore this fantasy a little further, let us imagine a nation where government wealth redistribution was completely effective and everyone actually shared the entire wealth of the United States equally. The exercise would involve placing a value on everything and all wealth in the USA, and then dividing it by the number of people.

And yes, we can find a figure for that.

The average net worth is $748,800. Hardly poverty existence.

Well, there goes another dumb conservative myth. Busted.

 

[Decypher]

Most "western" European countries? So, which countries do you include - UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Italy, Leichtenstein, Luxemborg, Vatican City, Monaco, Belgium, Netherlands? What other countries? School in Germany starts at age 6. Ireland 6, Italy 6, Norway 6....Spain, 6, Sweden 7, Switzerland 5 ish, --- I've gone through a bunch of those. The only one with a earlier start year is France, age 3.

"Most western European countries", really?

So, by all means, list the western euro countries that have "often free of charge" school for toddlers.

Did you look at primary school starts rather than pre-school?

The Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Scheme provides early childhood care and education for children of pre-school age. Children can start ECCE when they are 2 years and 8 months of age and continue until they transfer to primary school.

The State pays participating playschools and daycare services a set amount per child to offer the ECCE service. In return, participating centres and playschools provide a pre-school service free of charge to all children within the qualifying age range.

That’s for Ireland. Here’s England:

All 3 and 4-year-olds in England are entitled to 570 hours of free early education or childcare a year. This is often taken as 15 hours each week for 38 weeks of the year.
Some 2-year-olds are also eligible.
You can also search for help with childcare in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

​

 

[Paradoxical]

That is an irrational fear. But at least we have progressed from the fear of taxing the rich into poverty. (Something which has never happened.) Progressive taxation would never produce equal wealth because the larger brackets only tax the amounts over what everyone else earns.

But just to explore this fantasy a little further, let us imagine a nation where government wealth redistribution was completely effective and everyone actually shared the entire wealth of the United States equally. The exercise would involve placing a value on everything and all wealth in the USA, and then dividing it by the number of people.

And yes, we can find a figure for that.

The average net worth is $748,800. Hardly poverty existence.

Well, there goes another dumb conservative myth. Busted.

No. We have NOT "progressed past the point of taxing the rich into poverty". That will always be the end result of your dream plan. You speak in theory and that's OK, I guess....to be idealistic like that and imagine fairness for all. It just doesn't work in real life. Humans do not like or want to be forced to work for the benefit of others. Those who work for companies are not exploited as you assert. They just didn't pay the price earlier in life. They are paid what the market for their services calls for instead of what some idiot in government demands they be paid.

 

[Super Chief]

The point of universal preK isn’t to put students ahead. It is to keep them from falling BEHIND.

There is a difference.

Parents can do that themselves at home. The ones who actually care about their children.

 

[Peacenik]

No. We have NOT "progressed past the point of taxing the rich into poverty". That will always be the end result of your dream plan. You speak in theory and that's OK, I guess....to be idealistic like that and imagine fairness for all. It just doesn't work in real life. Humans do not like or want to be forced to work for the benefit of others.

Most American workers are indeed forced to work for the benefit of others. The only ones who don't are executives and employers.

Those who work for companies are not exploited as you assert. They just didn't pay the price earlier in life. They are paid what the market for their services calls for instead of what some idiot in government demands they be paid.

What that really means is capitalists would gladly pay workers even less if they thought they could get away with it.

Basically, there are two philosophies. Win/win and win/lose. Capitalists of the win/win philosophy care about their workers and feel a responsibility to provide fair pay and job security, knowing that a win for a worker is a win for an employer. Capitalists of the win/lose philosophy think the more they can screw workers out of the more there will be for them to call profits.

The problem with win/lose is that darn mystical human energy loop. What one puts out to the world comes back to them. Putting bad selfish energy out as an employer results in disgruntled workers who do not care about the business at all. That causes a business to be compromised.

The win/win business prevails in the long run because the workers are invested emotionally into making it a success.

People with bad vibes, bad energy, minimal paid vacation, get sick more often and are less productive than well rested well motivated workers who feel like they are part of something bigger than them, something good.

Capitalists do well when they learn the lesson that workers are an integral part of a business and need to be nurtured and cared for. They are not simply rented industrial machinery. They are human beings with lives and feelings. And those businesses who talk a good game, hire a professional PR firm to write up a bunch of empty good-sounding words to pose as being 'good business?' People can see through that. If there isn't substance behind the words, it's a win/lose business. Savvy workers leave lousy jobs and gravitate towards good ones.

 

[Paradoxical]

Most American workers are indeed forced to work for the benefit of others. The only ones who don't are executives and employers.



What that really means is capitalists would gladly pay workers even less if they thought they could get away with it.

Basically, there are two philosophies. Win/win and win/lose. Capitalists of the win/win philosophy care about their workers and feel a responsibility to provide fair pay and job security, knowing that a win for a worker is a win for an employer. Capitalists of the win/lose philosophy think the more they can screw workers out of the more there will be for them to call profits.

The problem with win/lose is that darn mystical human energy loop. What one puts out to the world comes back to them. Putting bad selfish energy out as an employer results in disgruntled workers who do not care about the business at all. That causes a business to be compromised.

The win/win business prevails in the long run because the workers are invested emotionally into making it a success.

People with bad vibes, bad energy, minimal paid vacation, get sick more often and are less productive than well rested well motivated workers who feel like they are part of something bigger than them, something good.

Capitalists do well when they learn the lesson that workers are an integral part of a business and need to be nurtured and cared for. They are not simply rented industrial machinery. They are human beings with lives and feelings. And those businesses who talk a good game, hire a professional PR firm to write up a bunch of empty good-sounding words to pose as being 'good business?' People can see through that. If there isn't substance behind the words, it's a win/lose business. Savvy workers leave lousy jobs and gravitate towards good ones.

That's correct. People should be paid what they are worth. Why do you have an issue with that?

 

[Peacenik]

That's correct. People should be paid what they are worth. Why do you have an issue with that?

There is more than one way to measure worth.

What is it worth to know that a worker has been given a chance at achieving the American dream?

 

[Paradoxical]

There is more than one way to measure worth.

What is it worth to know that a worker has been given a chance at achieving the American dream?

At the expense of someone trying to start a business and competing with China and being forced by the government to pay him $50.00 an hour with full benefits to start?

 

[BirdinHand]

At the expense of someone trying to start a business and competing with China and being forced by the government to pay him $50.00 an hour with full benefits to start?

LOLOL.

$50/hr plus benefits “to start”

Funny

 

[Peacenik]

At the expense of someone trying to start a business and competing with China and being forced by the government to pay him $50.00 an hour with full benefits to start?

Anyone starting a business is in competition with huge mega-corporations. That is their main impediment to financial success. And they can't get a good deal on health care or day care that might be associated with simply being a worker for one of those big corporations. We should have universal day care and unversal health care. Countries which do have a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a happier populace.

People in France have fewer problems with emotionally messed up children and they love longer than Americans.

France has universal day care and universal health care.

 

[Lursa]

And we should not be forced to feed their kids. Easy peasy.

That's not a solution. Did you make it up then, having one?

That is the solution. Have kids you can't afford, your family may be going hungry. Isn't that the reality most of the world has always known?

That's not a solution. That is a person's choice. The solution would be preventing that choice. You dont have one.

Maybe you dont have a dictionary either?

Make welfare food assistance pretty miserable. Dry beans, canned fish, fresh veggies and fruit, ground beef and fresh chicken. But certainly nothing prepared, and certainl never fast food. Maybe give them a free cookbook if that helps? But stop allowing people who make poor choices to make more poor choices by allowing them to buy food items on tax payer expense that they don't deserve to have.

Moral hazard, or what I like to call: Treat them like adults. They made babies like adults, now it is time to accountable like adults.

You are forgetting what I wrote in my first response...death, disease, disownment, imprisonment, beatings, public humiliation, exile, etc...historically, none of those things stopped people from having sex. Sooooo, crappy food aint gonna do it.

What else ya got?

You mentioned the constitution. So, you tell me what you meant.

I wrote that the Const protects the right to have sex...the govt cannot stop people from reproducing without violating their Const rights.

How much simpler do you need it?

Good, then that part is answerd.

I never asked it...you brought up $$$ and the Const. I'm not interested enough in it to follow up on it and at least you realize it's not valid.

Yeah, on that part. And then there is no requirement in the constitution that able bodied adults are owed free food.

Who said there was? I'm not promoting any ideas here. I'm asking you for your solution that you claimed. Where is it?

So maybe those adults who know how to make a baby, need to consider why it is their best interest, and the child's best interest, to use birth control, do family planning, or don't have sex/

Useless commentary and not a solution. I'm aware of your opinion.

How do you stop a cat from coming around your door? Stop feeding it.

So, where is your solution? See above, not providing public assistance (which didnt exist) never stopped the people all thru history, it's not going to work now. Having sex/reproducing is the strongest instinct on earth.

 

[Paradoxical]

LOLOL.

$50/hr plus benefits “to start”

Funny

That would be what progressives would eventually demand as a living wage. Why not?

 

[Peacenik]

LOLOL.

$50/hr plus benefits “to start”

Funny

Would be nice, but it's a joke to think any employer is required to provide that. If they did, we would have a better world and far more people motivated to work.

 

[Paradoxical]

Would be nice, but it's a joke to think any employer is required to provide that. If they did, we would have a better world and far more people motivated to work.

Why not under your system?

 

[Peacenik]

Why not under your system?

Well, the reason is obvious. Big money 'think tanks' are really unabashed public opinion shaping organizations funded by deep pocketed super-rich people who shield their identity with secret dark money. They convince conservatives that we can't possibly tax the rich any more or the world will come to an end. It's a great trick to get people to vote against their own better interest.

And you take rich people in the upper half, well, they don't really have the big money like the super-rich, but they are very well set. They are afraid if we tax the rich to help the poor, and the lifestyles of the poor rise, then the folks have have it well off wouldn't feel so special any more and wonder why they worked so hard to get what they've got. They've got to have somebody to look down on or they might realize they are not so special after all. They only want to pretend to help the poor, but not really eliminate poverty. They might give to a charity or two to help them feel better but they certainly don't want any large scale government effort to really eliminate poverty by taxing the rich.

There is plenty of money in the USA to eliminate poverty. People just don't really want to do it. They like having others to look down on.

 

[Paradoxical]

Well, the reason is obvious. Big money 'think tanks' are really unabashed public opinion shaping organizations funded by deep pocketed super-rich people who shield their identity with secret dark money. They convince conservatives that we can't possibly tax the rich any more or the world will come to an end. It's a great trick to get people to vote against their own better interest.

And you take rich people in the upper half, well, they don't really have the big money like the super-rich, but they are very well set. They are afraid if we tax the rich to help the poor, and the lifestyles of the poor rise, then the folks have have it well off wouldn't feel so special any more and wonder why they worked so hard to get what they've got. They've got to have somebody to look down on or they might realize they are not so special after all. They only want to pretend to help the poor, but not really eliminate poverty. They might give to a charity or two to help them feel better but they certainly don't want any large scale government effort to really eliminate poverty by taxing the rich.

There is plenty of money in the USA to eliminate poverty. People just don't really want to do it. They like having others to look down on.

No. I am saying why not FIFTY bucks an hour under your system of "fairness"? What would be "fair" to you per hour for someone who skated through school but got passed through and has poor work ethic but his parents got fed up and kicked him out and now he works at McDonalds.

Also, how much percentage of their income do you want to take from "the rich"